TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 
IN   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT 

A.  T.  ROBERTSON,  M.A.,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  LITT.D, 


BY  PROFESSOR  A.  T.  ROBERTSON 

TYPES  OF  PREACHERS  IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 
PAUL  THE  INTERPRETER  OF  CHRIST. 

A  HARMONY  OF  THE  GOSPELS  FOR  STUDENTS  OF  THE  LIFE 
OF  CHRIST. 

PRACTICAL  AND  SOCIAL  ASPECTS  OF  CHRISTIANITY  (Exposi- 
tion of  James). 

A  SHORT  GRAMMAR  OF  THE  GREEK  NEW  TESTAMENT. 
Fifth  Edition.  Translation  into  Dutch,  French,  Ger- 
man, Italian. 

A  GRAMMAR  OF  THE  GREEK  NEW  TESTAMENT  IN  THE 
LIGHT  OF  HISTORICAL  RESEARCH.  Third  Edition  Re- 
vised. 

JOHN  THE  LOYAL:  A  SKETCH  OF  JOHN  THE  BAPTIST. 
EPOCHS  IN  THE  LIFE  OF  JESUS. 
EPOCHS  IN  THE  LIFE  OF  PAUL. 

THE  PHARISEES  AND  JESUS.  The  Stone  Princeton  Lectures 
for  1916. 

LUKE  THE  HISTORIAN  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  RESEARCH. 
THE  STUDENT'S  CHRONOLOGICAL  NEW  TESTAMENT. 
THE  GLORY  OF  THE  MINISTRY. 
THE  DIVINITY  OF  CHRIST  IN  THE  GOSPEL  OF  JOHN. 
PAUL'S  JOY  IN  CHRIST:    STUDIES  IN  PHILIPPIANS. 

MAKING  GOOD  IN  THE  MINISTRY:  A  SKETCH  OF  JOHN 
MARK. 

THE  NEW  CITIZENSHIP. 

COMMENTARY  ON  MATTHEW:  The  Bible  for  Home  and 
School. 

STUDIES  IN  MARK'S  GOSPEL. 

STUDIES  IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

KEYWORDS  IN  THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS. 

LIFE  AND  LETTERS  OF  JOHN  A.  BROADUS. 

THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS  CONCERNING  GOD  THE  FATHER. 

SYLLABUS  FOR  NEW  TESTAMENT  STUDY. 


^TYPES  OF  PREACHERS   IN 
THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 


BY 

A.  T/  ROBERTSON,  M.A.,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  LITTJJ, 

PROFESSOR    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT    INTERPRETATION, 

SOUTHERN    BAPTIST    THEOLOGICAL    SEMINARY, 

LOUISVILLE,  KENTUCKY 


"A  Good  Minister  of  Christ  Jesus." 


7 


6 

NEW   ^3T  YORK 
GEORGE  H.  DORAN  COMPANY 


COPYRIGHT,    1922, 
BY  GEORGE   H.  DORAN   COMPANY 


TYPES  OF  PREACHERS  IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  I. 


PRINTED   IK   THE    UNITED   STATES  OF  AMERICA 


2212601 


PREFACE 

These  studies  of  some  of  the  minor  characters  in 
the  New  Testament  story  illustrate  the  wealth  of 
material  in  early  Christianity.  Human  nature  has 
infinite  variety  and  perpetual  interest.  The  author 
has  already  written  books  about  the  Baptist,  Jesus, 
Paul,  Luke,  the  Apostle  John,  Mark,  and  has  one  on 
the  stocks  about  Simon  Peter.  So  these  are  not  in- 
cluded in  this  volume.  The  problem  of  the  ministry  is 
always  a  vital  one  and  there  are  periods  of  pessimism 
about  the  ministerial  supply.  But  God  can  use  men, 
of  wide  divergence  in  gifts  and  is  not  bound  by  any 
rules  save  those  of  life  and  love.  The  Word  of  God 
is  not  bound  by  any  human  shackles.  The  battle  of 
the  human  spirit  for  fellowship  with  God  in  Christ 
goes  on  through  the  ages.  A  noble  line  of  interpreters 
of  Christ  appear  in  every  age. 

A,  T.  ROBERTSON. 

Louisville,  Kentucky. 


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

Acknowledgments  are  made  to  the  following  jour- 
nals for  permission  to  reproduce  chapters  that  had 
previously  appeared  in  them :  The  Biblical  Review, 
The  Expositor  (London),  The  Methodist  Review 
(New  York),  The  Methodist  Review  (Nashville),  The 
Christian  Worker's  Magazine,  The  Moody  Monthly, 
The  Expositor  (Cleveland),  The  Record  of  Christian 
Work. 


CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  FACT 

I    APOLLOS  THE  MINISTER  WITH  INSUFFICIENT 

PREPARATION 13 

II    BARNABAS  THE  YOUNG  PREACHER'S  FRIEND      30 

III  AQUILA  AND  PRISCILLA  PARTNERS  IN  SERV- 

ICE     52 

IV  JAMES  THE  MAN  OF  POISE 71 

V    PHILEMON  THE  MAN  WITH  A  SOCIAL  PROB- 
LEM       85 

VI     STEPHEN  THE  PATHBREAKER  AND  THE  MAR- 
TYR   108 

VII  LYDIA  THE  PREACHER'S  FRIEND  AND  HELPER  122 

VIII  SILAS  THE  COMRADE 134 

IX  TITUS  THE  COURAGEOUS 148 

X  TIMOTHY  THE  FAITHFUL 158 

XI    THOMAS    THE    PREACHER    WITH    HONEST 

DOUBTS 169 

XII    PHILIP  THE  EVANGELIST 182 

XIII  MATTHEW   THE   BUSINESS   MAN    IN    THE 

MINISTRY 192 

XIV  JUDAS  THE  TRAITOR  TO  His  LORD  .     .     .     206 

XV      DlOTREPHES  THE  CHURCH  REGULATOR    .        .       2l8 

XVI     EPAPHRODITUS  THE  MINISTER  WHO  RISKED 

ALL  FOR  CHRIST 230 

ix 


TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 
IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 


CHAPTER  I 

APOLLOS  THE  MINISTER  WITH  INSUFFI- 
CIENT PREPARATION 

The  touch  of  genius  does  not  belong  to  many. 
When  a  man  of  marked  individuality  confronts  us,  he 
at  once  attracts  attention.  We  have  various  phrases 
that  more  or  less  conceal  our  ignorance  of  the  subtle 
quality  that  charms  us.  We  call  it  personal  magnetism 
when  we  cannot  otherwise  distinguish  the  element  of 
power.  Apollos  had  the  note  of  distinction.  He  was 
a  marked  man  in  any  gathering  and  left  his  impress 
whenever  he  spoke.  A  man  who  could  divide  honours 
with  Paul  in  Corinth  is  worthy  of  study.  We  are  in- 
debted to  Luke  (Acts  18 124-19  :i )  and  to  Paul  ( i  Cor. 
1:12-4:21;  16:12;  Tit.  3:13)  for  all  that  we  really 
know  about  him.  It  is  argued  by  some  that  he  wrote 
the  Wisdom  of  Solomon  before  becoming  a  Chris- 
tian and  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  after  he  learned  to 
serve  Jesus.  But  there  is  no  real  evidence  for  either 
theory.  Paul  calls  him  an  apostle  like  himself,  in 
I  Corinthians  4:9,  though  it  was  true  of  him  only  in 
a  general  sense,  since  he  had  not  seen  the  risen  Christ 
and  was  not  a  personal  follower  while  Jesus  lived  on 
earth, 

A  JEW  WITH  ALEXANDRIAN  CULTURE 

Luke  speaks  of  him  as  "a  certain  Jew  named 
Apollos,  an  Alexandrian  by  race."  Schmiedel  ("En- 

13 


14  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

cyclopaedia  Biblica")  and  McGiffert  ("The  Apostolic 
Age,"  p.  291)  seek  to  discredit  the  statements  of  Luke 
in  various  particulars,  but  they  admit  this  statement. 
The  Bezan  text  (D)  gives  the  longer  form  of  the 
name,  Apollonius.  This  is  one  of  the  few  times  that 
Alexandria  is  mentioned  in  the  New  Testament, 
though  the  influence  of  the  Alexandrian  teaching  is 
discernible  in  various  passages,  as  in  John  1:1-18; 
Colossians  1:15-17;  Hebrews  1:1-3.  In  Alexandria 
the  Septuagint  translation  of  the  Hebrew  Bible  was 
made,  and  this  Greek  Old  Testament  exerted  a  tre- 
mendous influence  on  the  Jews  of  the  Dispersion  and 
upon  early  Christians.  Alexandria  had  the  greatest 
library  of  antiquity  and  a  great  university.  The  Jews 
were  very  numerous  and  were  treated  with  much  favour 
there.  Alexandria  was  thus  a  centre  of  Hellenism 
and  of  Judaism.  Plato  and  Moses  met  in  Alexandria 
in  the  Greek  tongue.  The  Jews  there  read  the  Sep- 
tuagint and  spoke  the  vernacular  koine.  Thousands 
of  papyri  fragments  now  reveal  to  us  the  Greek  of 
Egypt  in  the  first  century  A.D. 

One  of  the  greatest  Jews  of  all  times  lived  in  Alex- 
andria in  that  century.  Apollos  could  have  studied, 
or  at  least  read,  the  philosophy  of  Philo,  the  chief 
exponent  of  the  Jewish-Alexandrian  philosophy. 
Grammar,  rhetoric,  philosophy,  astronomy,  mathe- 
matics, medicine,  geography,  were  all  subjects  of 
lectures  by  learned  professors  in  Alexandria.  Apollos 
lived  in  this  atmosphere  of  culture  and  is  thus  like  Paul, 
who  came  from  the  environment  of  the  University  of 
Tarsus.  Christianity  and  culture  have  not  always 
understood  one  another.  In  some  university  circles  to- 


APOLLOS  THE  MINISTER  15 

day  Christ  is  taboo.  The  Renaissance  led  to  the  Ref- 
ormation, but  Erasmus  and  his  Greek  Testament  did 
not  hold  all  lovers  of  the  new  learning.  Paganism  still 
has  its  grip  upon  some  modern  scholarship.  In  Alex- 
andria Philo  sought  to  reconcile  Plato  and  Moses.  He 
did  it  by  the  allegorical  method  that  won  great  favour 
in  the  later  Christian  school  of  theology  in  Alexandria 
under  Origen  and  Clement  of  Alexandria.  It  was  a 
favourite  method  of  certain  rabbis,  and  Paul  is  familiar 
with  it.  Apollos  undoubtedly  knew  the  new  eclectic 
philosophy  that  combined  Platonism,  Aristotelianism, 
Stoicism,  and  Mosaism,  and  the  new  exegetical  method. 
He  was  at  home  with  the  new  rhetoric  and  knew  how 
to  express  his  opinions  with  force.  Luke  calls  him 
"an  eloquent  man"  (Xityios),  but  the  word  means  also 
"learned."  In  fact  it  includes  both  learning  and  elo- 
quence (Knowling,  Acts,  in  loco).  The  early  Chris- 
tians had  none  too  many  men  of  literary  culture.  Paul, 
Luke,  and  the  author  of  the  Hebrews  are  the  outstand- 
ing ones.  Apollos  is  a  welcome  addition  to  this  small 
circle. 

A  MIGHTY  INTERPRETER  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES 

Apollos  was  "able"  (6waT<5s)  in  the  use  of  the  Scrip- 
tures. A  man  may  have  a  considerable  knowledge  of 
the  Bible  and  yet  not  be  able  to  use  his  knowledge  effec- 
tively. But  Apollos  was  no  "Doctor  Dry-as-dust." 
He  did  not  have  his  learning  laid  away  in  an  attic  or 
in  cold  storage.  He  had  learned  much  of  the  Old 
Testament  .by  heart  and  knew  how  to  find  what  he 
wanted.  D.  L.  Moody  was  not  as  great  a  technical 
scholar  as  some  men,  but  he  knew  how  to  use  the  sword 


16 

of  the  Spirit  with  tremendous  power ;  it  was  no  Saul's 
armour  to  this  David.  Spurgeon  was  as  remarkable 
for  his  knowledge  of  the  Scriptures  as  for  his  skill  as 
a  preacher;  his  Treasury  of  David  is  a  treasury  indeed. 
Alexander  Maclaren's  "Expositions  of  Holy  Scrip- 
tures" reveal  the  richness  of  Scripture  knowledge 
possessed  by  this  prince  of  preachers.  John  A. 
Broadus  was  another  preacher  of  great  pulpit  power 
who  gloried  in  the  Scriptures.  The  last  lecture  that 
Broadus  delivered  to  his  New  Testament  class  in  the 
Southern  Baptist  Theological  Seminary  was  on 
Apollos.  He  made  a  thrilling  appeal  to  young  minis- 
ters to  be  "mighty  in  the  Scriptures." 

It  is  not  possible  to  be  powerful  in  the  use  of  the 
Scriptures  without  an  adequate  knowledge  of  the 
books  of  Scripture.  One,  if  possible,  should  have 
technical  acquaintance  with  the  problems  of  scholar- 
ship, the  language,  the  history,  the  religious  ideas,  the 
social  conditions,  the  relations  to  other  religions  and 
peoples,  the  development  in  response  to  new  ideas,  the 
transforming  power  of  Christ's  life  and  teachings 
upon  mankind.  The  word  for  "mighty"  is  used  in 
Acts  7:22  of  Moses,  who  was  slow  of  speech:  "And 
he  was  mighty  in  his  words  and  works."  He  "was 
instructed  in  all  the  wisdom  of  the  Egyptians."  So 
was  Apollos,  only  his  Egyptian  equipment  included 
the  addition  of  Hellenism  and  Judaism.  Herodotus 
applies  the  word  for  "eloquent"  (Xcfyios)  to  knowledge 
of  history,  and  Plutarch  uses  it  of  eloquence  (Cf. 
Knowling,  Acts  in  loco).  Ramsay  ("St.  Paul  the 
Traveller,"  p.  267)  calls  Apollos  "a  good  speaker,  and 
well  read  in  the  Scripture."  He  is  apparently  the  first 


APOLLOS  THE  MINISTER  17 

Christian  preacher  who  expounds  Christianity  from 
the  standpoint  of  the  philosophy  of  Alexandria.  Some 
Philonian  speculations  may  well  have  been  inter- 
mingled with  his  profound  knowledge  of  the  Scrip- 
tures. The  allegorical  method  of  exegesis  would  seem 
novel  and  wonderful,  and  the  orator's  touch  gave  a 
magic  spell  to  his  oratory.  Such  a  man  was  bound 
to  win  a  hearing  and  a  following.  As  a  loyal  Jew 
he  had  devoted  his  learning  and  eloquence  to  the  expo- 
sition of  Scripture  (Rackham,  "Acts,"  p.  341). 

A  CHRISTIAN  WITH  ONLY  THE  KNOWLEDGE  OF 
THE  BAPTIST 

Here  we  confront  a  difficult  problem.  Precisely  how 
much  did  Apollos  know  of  Jesus?  The  Bezan  Text 
(D)  says  that  "he  had  been  instructed  in  the  way  of 
the  Lord  in  his  native  land"  (ovros  rjv  Karrix-w^os  r-nv  686v 
TOU  Kuptou).  This  means  that  Apollos  learned  what 
he  knew  of  Jesus  in  Alexandria.  There  is  nothing  im- 
possible in  that  idea.  The  knowledge  of  Apollos  may 
well  represent  the  condition  of  Christianity  in  Alex- 
andria when  he  left.  Luke  says  that  he  knew  "only 
the  baptism  of  John"  and  yet  he  was  "instructed  in 
the  way  of  the  Lord"  and  "spake  and  taught  accurately 
the  things  concerning  Jesus."  McGiffert  ("The  Apos- 
tolic Age,"  p.  291)  says  that  this  statement  of  Luke 
can  hardly  be  accurate  "because  it  seems  contradic- 
tory." Schmiedel  ("Encyclopaedia  Biblica")  would 
make  these  verses  later  additions,  and  Wendt  (Meyer, 
Komm,  "Acts")  would  erase  verse  25.  Harnack  ("Ex- 
pansion of  Christianity,"  i,  33 in)  says  that  "the  whole 
narrative  of  Acts  at  this  point  is  singularly  coloured 


18  TYPE'S  OF  PREACHERS 

and  obscure."  There  is  obscurity,  beyond  a  doubt,  but 
it  is  not  impossible  to  form  an  intelligent  idea  of  what 
the  theological  standpoint  of  Apollos  was  when  he 
came  to  Ephesus.  It  is  not  necessary  to  know  whether 
he  had  learned  what  he  knew  of  Jesus  from  a  written 
document,  one  of  the  early  attempts  to  set  forth  the 
work  of  Jesus  (Luke  1:2).  He  may  have  had  an  early 
copy  of  Mark's  Gospel  if  it  ended  at  16:8,  as  Blass 
suggests  ("Philology  of  the  Gospels,"  p.  31).  Even  if 
the  word  for  "instructed"  (Ka-njx'7M«'os)  implies  oral 
instruction,  as  Wright  argues  ( The  Expository  Times, 
Oct.,  1897,  p.  pf.),  books  were  often  read  aloud.  The 
point  is  not  decisive.  Catechists  may  have  come  to 
Alexandria,  even  though  no  Christian  church  may  have 
existed  there. 

What  we  need  to  do  is  to  approach  Apollos  from 
the  standpoint  of  John  the  Baptist,  not  from  that  of 
Paul.  John  came  "in  the  way  of  righteousness," 
Jesus  said  (Matt.  21 132).  John  was  put  to  death  be- 
fore Calvary,  before  the  Resurrection  of  Jesus,  and 
before  the  great  Pentecost.  John  went  on  with  his 
work  after  Jesus  began  His  ministry,  but  he  clearly 
identified  Jesus  as  "the  Lamb  of  God,  that  taketh  away 
the  sin  of  the  world"  (John  1 129)  and  as  "the  Son  of 
God"  (John  1 134).  He  said  that  the  Messiah  would 
baptise  with  the  Holy  Spirit  (Mark  1:8).  He  saw 
some  of  his  disciples  leave  him  to  follow  Jesus  as  the 
Messiah  (John  1 137).  John's  work  exerted  a  tre- 
mendous influence  on  Judaism,  and  it  went  on  after 
his  death.  It  is  not  strange  that  some  of  his  disciples 
were  caught  in  the  transition  stage  and  did  not  know 
all  the  rapid  developments  of  Christianity.  The 


APOLLOS  THE  MINISTER  19 

disciples  of  John  who  became  Christians  were  not  bap- 
tised again.  John's  baptism  is  all  the  baptism  that 
Jesus  had,  or  His  first  six  disciples.  It  was  sufficient. 
Baptism  is  probably  used  by  Luke  in  Acts  18:25  for 
the  whole  work  of  John  as  Jesus  employed  it  in  Mat- 
thew 21 125.  Apollos,  then,  occupied  the  pre-Pente- 
costal  standpoint,  though  a  sincere  follower  of  Jesus 
(Robertson,  "John  the  Loyal,"  p.  293).  He  inter- 
preted the  things  of  Christ  accurately  as  far  as  he 
knew  them.  He  had  imperfect  knowledge  rather  than 
erroneous  information.  He  was  in  no  sense  a  heretic, 
though  he  was  sadly  deficient  in  important  points. 

It  is  argued  by  some  (Roberts,  for  instance,  in 
Hastings's  "Dictionary  of  the  Apostolic  Church")  that 
Apollos  not  only  "had  an  imperfect  'hearsay'  acquaint- 
ance with  the  story  of  Jesus,"  but  he  really  know  no 
more  about  Him  than  the  twelve  misguided  disciples 
of  John  whom  Paul  encounters  in  Ephesus  after  Apol- 
los has  gone  (Acts  19:1-7).  In  fact  these  twelve 
men  are  regarded  by  this  theory  as  disciples  of  Apollos 
and  as  an  index  of  the  knowledge  possessed  by  him. 
It  is,  I  believe,  wholly  unlikely  that  these  men  were 
disciples  of  Apollos,  and,  if  so,  they,  as  often  happens, 
failed  to  understand  their  teacher.  Luke  could  not 
have  used  the  adverb  "accurately"  about  the  teaching 
of  Apollos  if  he  knew  no  more  than  these  twelve  men. 
They  were  ignorant  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  of  repentance, 
and  of  Jesus.  John  the  Baptist  had  taught  all  these 
things,  which,  of  course,  Apollos  knew.  These  men 
were  sadly  misguided  disciples  of  John  whom  Paul 
instructs  and  baptises.  There  is  no  hint  that  Apollos 
was  baptised  again.  Luke  contrasts  their  condition 


20  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

with  that  of  Apollos.  These  men  were  raw  and  un- 
couth in  their  knowledge  of  the  elements  of  Chris- 
tianity. They  represent  the  stage  of  some  of  the 
disciples  of  John  who  hung  on  the  very  fringe  of 
Christianity.  Apollos  is  much  further  along.  He 
lacked  knowledge  of  the  great  events  from  the  death 
of  Christ  to  Pentecost  and  the  great  missionary  propa- 
ganda. It  was  a  pity  for  so  gifted  a  man  to  remain 
with  so  limited  a  knowledge  of  Christianity.  It  is  al- 
ways a  tragedy  for  a  minister  to  be  deficient  in  his 
knowledge  of  the  cross  of  Christ.  Only  the  Spirit  of 
God  can  teach  him  fully. 

A  PASSIONATE  ENTHUSIAST,  QUICK  TO  LEARN 

It  is  possible  that  Apollos  first  began  to  speak  and 
to  teach  privately,  and  then  "he  began  to  speak  boldly 
in  the  synagogue"  (Acts  18:26)  as  Paul  did  after- 
wards for  three  months  (19:8).  Luke  uses  the  same 
word  for  this  "bold"  speaking  by  Apollos  and  Paul 
(7rapp7?<ndfo/zai).  It  is  employed  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment only  by  Luke  and  Paul  and  always  of  the  bold 
declaration  of  the  truths  of  the  Gospel.  Apollos  did 
not  lack  the  courage  of  his  convictions  and  was  care- 
ful in  his  statements  about  Jesus  to  keep  within  the 
bounds  of  his  definite  knowledge.  This  admirable 
trait  of  minute  accuracy  is  all  the  more  noticeable  since 
Apollos  was  "fervent  in  spirit"  (f4ow  T£  Tireu/itm). 
An  enthusiastic  temperament  is  sometimes  exuberant 
in  expressions  that  are  more  florid  and  rhetorical  than 
accurate.  Paul  commends  fervency  (Rom.  12:11)  as 
one  of  the  marks  of  sincerity.  The  word  means  liter- 
ally boiling  over  (our  "zeal"). 


APOLLOS  THE  MINISTER  21 

It  was  in  the  synagogue  that  Apollos  attracted  the 
attention  of  Priscilla  and  Aquila,  whom  Paul  had  left 
in  Ephesus  when  he  went  on  to  Caesarea  and  Antioch 
(Acts  i8:2if).  The  mention  of  Priscilla  before 
Aquila  here,  though  the  Western  and  Syrian  types  of 
text  have  Aquila  and  Priscilla,  may  mean  that  Priscilla 
took  the  leading  part  in  the  further  instruction  of 
Apollos.  They  were  evidently  surprised  and  delighted 
with  this  remarkable  preacher  and  saw  at  once  the 
obvious  defects  in  his  knowledge  of  the  Gospel.  But 
they  did  not  stop  with  this  discovery,  nor  did  they 
indulge  in  public  criticism  of  the  limitations  of  Apollos 
as  an  expounder  of  the  faith.  They  could  easily  have 
closed  the  door  of  service  for  this  brilliant  man.  But 
they  apparently  invited  him  home  after  worship, 
probably  for  dinner.  "They  took  him  unto  them" 
(Trpoo-eXa/Soj'To  avrov,  indirect  middle,  took  him  to  them- 
selves). 

Criticism  is  a  delicate  task,  a  sort  of  spiritual  sur- 
gery, and,  though  greatly  needed,  is  very  difficult  to 
perform  without  doing  more  harm  than  good. 
Preachers,  like  musicians,  are  highly  sensitive,  particu- 
larly about  their  sermons  and  their  knowledge  of  the 
Gospel  which  is  their  specialty.  Apollos  had  a  great 
acquaintance  with  the  Scriptures  and  philosophy  and 
rhetoric.  He  was  lacking  in  some  important  items 
about  Jesus.  It  would  have  been  easy  to  give  him 
offence  and  to  add  to  his  eccentricity.  But  Priscilla 
was  beyond  a  doubt  a  woman  of  tact.  They  "ex- 
pounded unto  him  the  way  of  God  more  accurately." 
This  is  simply  superb.  It  was  done  thoroughly,  neatly, 
and  smoothly  ( cupi/3e<rT6p<w  wry  e£e0evTo).  Fortunately 


22  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

they  did  not  have  to  contravene  any  of  his  positions. 
He  was  correct  as  far  as  he  went.  Only  he  did  not 
go  far  enough. 

One  can  easily  imagine  how  the  heart  of  Apollos 
burned  within  him  and  how  his  eyes  glistened  as  he 
learned  of  the  Cross,  the  Resurrection,  the  Ascension, 
the  Pentecostal  Power  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  Gentile 
campaign  for  world  conquest.  He  was  an  eager  pupil 
and  doubtless  cheered  the  hearts  of  his  hosts  and 
teachers.  Evidently  Apollos  exhibited  profound  grati- 
tude for  the  new  light  that  had  been  turned  upon  the 
great  problems  of  Christianity.  He  readily  saw  the 
bearing  of  it  all  upon  what  he  already  knew  so  well. 
There  is  hope  for  the  man  who  is  ready  to  learn.  One 
is  never  too  old  to  learn.  The  minister  who  is  always 
learning  will  always  have  a  hearing.  There  is  no  dead 
line  for  him.  That  comes  the  minute  one  stops  learn- 
ing. Apollos  is  a  rebuke  to  the  preacher  who  is  con- 
tent to  preach  his  old  sermons  through  the  years 
without  reading  the  new  books  or  mastering  the  old 
ones.  Here  is  a  profound  student  of  the  Scriptures, 
a  master  in  Old  Testament  interpretation,  who  is  glad 
to  sit  at  the  feet  of  Priscilla  and  Aquila  and  learn  more 
of  Jesus.  That  is  the  place  for  all  of  us,  at  the  feet 
of  anyone  who  can  teach  us  more  about  Jesus.  We 
cannot  know  too  much  about  Him.  We  cannot  be 
too  accurate  in  our  knowledge  of  Him.  The  passion 
of  Paul  in  his  later  years  was  to  know  Jesus,  for 
Christ  always  eludes  us  just  a  bit.  There  is  always 
more  to  learn  about  the  unsearchable  riches  of  Christ. 


APOLLOS  THE  MINISTER  23 

A  POWERFUL  APOLOGIST  FOR  CHRISTIANITY 

The  Bezan  text  (D)  has  this:  "And  there  were 
certain  Corinthians  sojourning  in  Ephesus,  and  when 
they  heard  him  they  besought  him  to  cross  over  with 
them  to  their  country.  And  when  he  had  consented, 
tEe  Ephesians  wrote  to  the  disciples  in  Corinth  that 
they  should  receive  the  man."  This  is  quite  likely 
the  real  origin  of  the  way  that  Apollos  came  to  go  toi 
Corinth,  though  it  is  clearly  not  the  original  text  of 
Acts.  So  Apollos  "was  minded  to  pass  over  into 
Achaia,"and  "the  brethren  encouraged  him"  (irporpel/- 
o/ievoi,  'putting  him  forward).  He  seemed  to  be 
just  the  type  of  man  that  would  suit  the  situation  in 
Corinth.  Priscilla  and  Aquila  knew  Corinth  well; 
and  the  Corinthian  brethren  in  Ephesus  no  doubt  felt 
that  they  had  made  a  great  "find"  for  their  church  in 
the  metropolis,  just  like  a  modern  pulpit  committee. 
There  was  apparently  no  organised  church  as  yet  in 
Ephesus,  though  some  Christians  were  there,  besides 
Aquila  and  Priscilla.  Apollos  was  fully  equipped 
with  a  cordial  letter  of  commendation.  Paul  will  later 
comment  on  the  fact  that  he  himself  needed  no  "epistles 
of  commendation  to  you  or  from  you"  "as  do  some" 
(2  Cor.  3:1). 

Apollos  soon  justified  the  wisdom  of  those  who  had 
Brought  him.  "He  helped  them  much  that  had  believed 
through  grace"  (Acts  18:27).  He  seems  to  have  ad- 
dressed himself  chiefly  to  those  already  Christians  who 
had  been  converted  under  Paul's  ministry.  Evidently 
Apollos  was  less  evangelistic  than  Paul.  These  hearers 
had  already  "believed  through  grace,"  and  Apollos 


24  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

"helped  them  much"  (o-wejSdXero  TroXu).  He  gave  them 
a  constructive  interpretation  of  Christianity  with  the 
fresh  glow  of  the  new  knowledge  acquired  in  Ephesus 
and,  in  particular,  "he  powerfully  confuted  the  Jews, 
and  that  publicly,  showing  by  the  scriptures  that  Jesus 
was  the  Christ"  (Acts  18:28).  It  will  be  recalled  that 
in  Corinth  the  Jews  had  blasphemed  Paul  for  preaching 
this  very  doctrine  (Acts  18:6)  and  had  brought  Paul 
before  Gallio,  much  to  their  sorrow  (18:12-17).  The 
issue  was  still  sharply  drawn  between  Jews  and  Chris- 
tians in  Corinth.  Apollos  was  doubly  welcome  because 
of  his  great  knowledge  of  and  skill  in  the  use  of  the 
Scriptures.  He  "argued  them  down"  (diaKar-nXfyx^o; 
note  imperfect  tense  and  double  compound).  He  did 
not  necessarily  convince  the  Jews  though  he  disputed 
"vehemently"  (eMvcos;  cf.  Luke  23:10). 

But  the  powerful  apologetic  of  Apollos  made  a  pro- 
found impression  upon  the  Christians  in  Corinth.  He 
was  hailed,  and  rightly  so,  as  a  champion  of  the  faith. 
Apollos  was  a  new  type  to  them.  The  scholastic  and 
philosophical  turn  of  his  mind  was  pleasing  in  Corinth. 
Paul  did  not  have  the  excellency  of  speech  from  the 
rhetorical  standpoint  or  the  persuasive  words  of  wis- 
dom (i  Cor.  2:1-4)  that  Apollos  had  and  that  many 
of  them  liked.  It  is  one  of  the  blessings  of  life  that 
men  have  different  gifts.  God  can  use  them  all.  It 
would  be  a  great  misfortune  if  preachers  were  just 
alike  in  intellectual  equipment  and  in  style  of  speech. 

A    SKILFUL    BUILDER    ON    PAULAS    FOUNDATION 

"I  planted,  Apollos  watered;  but  God  gave  the  in- 
crease" (i  Cor.  3 :6).  Paul  "as  a  wise  master-builder" 


APOLLOS  THE  MINISTER  25 

(3:10;  cf.  Lock,  "St.  Paul  the  Masterbuilder" )  had 
laid  the  foundation  that  should  underlie  every  church, 
Jesus  Christ  (3:11).  "Another  buildeth  thereon,"  he 
said,  with  probable  reference  to  Apollos.  Both  Paul 
and  Apollos  had  been  "God's  fellow  workers"  (0«>u 
ffvvcpyoL  ),  while  the  Corinthian  church  was  "God's 
building"  (  6eou  okoSojui) ) ,  "God's  husbandry"  (  6eou 
yt&pyiov  ),  to  change  the  figure  (3:9).  Paul  was  the 
architect  (apxirtKruv) ,  but  he  simply  carried  out  God's 
plan  for  the  building.  It  required  many  men  and 
long  years  to  build  a  cathedral  which  the  German  shells 
demolished  in  an  hour.  But  each  man  through  the 
years  carried  on  the  work  according  to  the  great  plan 
laid  down.  So  Paul  rejoiced  in  the  work  of  Apollos 
who  succeeded  him  in  Corinth,  as  Jesus  rejoiced  in 
the  work  of  John  the  Baptist  who  preceded  Him  (John 
4:36f).  The  one  who  sows  and  the  one  who  reaps 
rejoice  together.  Each  preacher  enters  into  the  labour 
of  others.  There  is  no  cause  for  jealousy,  but  only 
ground  for  gratitude.  It  is  part  of  the  preacher's 
business  to  learn  how  to  fit  his  work  into  that  of  the 
man  who  preceded  him.  He  must  be  a  constructive 
builder,  not  a  destructive  critic.  It  is  beautiful  to  see 
how  Paul  rejoices  in  the  work  of  his  co-workers.  He 
had  apparently  not  seen  Apollos  until  he  had  finished 
his  work  in  Corinth  and  had  returned  to  Ephesus 
(i  Cor.  16:12). 

We  do  not  know  why  Apollos  left  Corinth.  He  may 
have  had  premonitions  of  trouble.  Divisions  exist  in 
the  church  when  Paul  writes  to  them,  that  arose  pri- 
marily out  of  partisan  preferences  for  Apollos  or  Paul. 
Weizsacker  ("The  Apostolic  Age  in  the  Christian 


26  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

Church,"  vol.  i,  p.  320)  thinks  that  "an  Apollos  party 
was  only  formed  some  time  after  his  departure.  And 
this  supposition  is  in  turn  confirmed  by  the  fact  that  no 
shadow  of  blame  fell  on  Apollos  for  the  creation  of  the 
party."  This  judgment  is  in  accord  with  the  facts  as 
we  know  them.  We  know  nothing  of  the  unfortunate 
schisms  in  Corinth,  except  what  Paul  tells  us  himself, 
save  that  the  trouble  was  still  there  when  Clement 
wrote  his  "Epistle  to  the  Church."  Paul  recognises 
frankly  the  differences  between  his  manner  of  preach- 
ing and  that  of  Apollos.  Men  are  not  made  after  the 
same  pattern.  There  are  diversities  of  gifts  from  the 
same  Spirit  (i  Cor.  12:1-7).  Apollos  had  rhetorical 
eloquence  and  used  the  language  of  the  Alexandrian 
philosophy  (wisdom),  but  Paul  was  not  jealous  of 
these  gifts,  since  God  had  given  him  the  demonstra- 
tion and  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Paul  was  their 
spiritual  father,  and  Apollos  could  only  be  their  peda- 
gogue (i  Cor.  4:15).  They  had  each  his  own  place 
and  work,  and  each  would  receive  his  own  reward  from 
God  as  steward  of  the  mysteries  of  God  (4:1-5). 

It  is  evident  that  Paul  regarded  the  work  of  Apollos 
as  a  continuation  of  his  own,  and  he  and  Apollos  were 
on  excellent  terms  in  Ephesus.  The  free  way  in  which 
he  uses  his  name  shows  this  (i  Cor.  I  :i2;  3  :4).  Paul 
is  not  writing  out  of  any  jealousy  of  Apollos  or  of 
bitterness  towards  him.  It  is  quite  likely  that  Paul 
conferred  with  Apollos  regarding  the  critical  situa- 
tion that  had  arisen  in  Corinth.  They  understood 
one  another  on  this  point  (Kerr,  "Int.  Stand.  Bibl. 
Encycl.").  Apollos  was  no  more  responsible  for  the 
spirit  of  faction  in  Corinth  than  was  Paul  or  Peter. 


APOLLOS  THE  MINISTER  27 

"Nor  has  he  reproached  Apollos  with  seeking  to  over- 
shadow him  by  his  own  mode  and  style"  (Weizsacker, 
ibid.  p.  321).  Paul  tells  us  why  he  speaks  so  plainly 
about  Apollos:  "Now  these  things,  brethren,  I  have 
in  a  figure  transferred  [/iCTeo-x^ATio-a]  to  myself  and 
Apollos  for  your  sakes;  that  in  us  ye  might  learn 
not  to  go  beyond  the  things  that  are  written;  that  no 
one  of  you  be  puffed  up  for  the  one  against  the  other" 
(i  Cor.  4:6).  This  is  the  secret  of  the  whole  matter. 
"This  sensitiveness  on  this  point  was  directed  not 
against  Apollos  but  against  the  party"  (Weizsacker, 
ibid.).  Paul  speaks  plainly  that  the  schismatics  may 
see  the  point.  It  was  folly  to  split  the  church  over 
three  preachers  (Paul,  Apollos,  Cephas)  as  they  were 
doing  (i  Cor.  1 112;  3:4),  when  these  preachers  were 
only  co-workers  and  they  could  love  them  all  (3  :22f ). 
Sometimes  preachers  are  put  in  the  light  of  opposition 
when  they  are  wholly  innocent. 

A  LEADER  UNWILLING  TO  FOSTER  A  FACTION 

Paul  has  some  severe  words  about  teachers  who 
destroy  the  temple  of  God  (i  Cor.  3:16-21).  He  un- 
doubtedly has  in  mind  the  factional  leaders  in  Corinth. 
It  is  bad  enough  when  a  man  builds  with  wood,  hay, 
stubble  on  the  good  foundation  (3:12-15).  Fire  will 
test  the  quality  of  every  preacher's  and  teacher's  work. 
He  may  himself  be  saved,  but  all  his  preaching  goes  up 
in  smoke,  dry  enough  as  some  of  it  is.  That  is  pathetic 
enough  from  the  preacher's  standpoint,  but  it  is  far 
worse  for  a  preacher  to  be  the  cause  of  the  ruin  of  a 
church.  Some  men  are  church-builders;  others  are 
church-destroyers  and  wreck  church  after  church. 


28  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

These  men  should  be  banished  to  a  desert  island.  But 
the  best  of  men  may  be  the  occasion  of  strife  in  spite 
of  all  that  they  can  do. 

After  Apollos  had  left  Corinth  the  members  of  the 
church  began  to  discuss  the  relative  merits  of  Paul  and 
Apollos  as  preachers  and  teachers.  The  very  eccen- 
tricities of  the  two  men  were  exaggerated  and  pitted 
over  against  each  other.  Apollos'  "brilliancy  and 
Alexandrian  modes  of  thought  and  expression  readily 
lent  themselves  to  any  tendency  to  form  a  party,  who 
would  exalt  these  gifts  at  the  expense  of  Paul's  studied 
plainness"  (Robertson  and  Plummer,  "Int.  Crit. 
Comm.,"  p.  n).  "The  difference  between  Apollos  and 
St.  Paul  seems  to  be  not  so  much  a  difference  of  views 
as  in  the  mode  of  stating  those  views;  the  eloquence 
of  St.  Paul  was  rough  and  burning;  that  of  Apollos 
was  more  refined  and  polished"  (F.  W.  Robertson). 
But,  after  this  issue  was  made  partisans  of  each  sprang 
up  and  heat  was  engendered.  It  is  possible  that  Peter 
made  a  brief  visit  to  Corinth,  but  at  any  rate  the 
Judaisers  came  and  were  only  too  glad  to  find  opposi- 
tion to  Paul's  leadership  in  Corinth.  These  men  sought 
to  win  the  whole  church  away  from  Paul  by  playing 
Peter  against  Paul  and  Apollos  as  the  chief  apostle 
and  the  exponent  of  the  real  orthodoxy,  free  from  the 
Gentile  laxness  of  Paul  and  the  Alexandrian  philosophy 
of  Apollos.  This  petty  partisanship  so  disgusted  some 
that  they  actually  made  a  partisan  use  of  Christ's  name 
and  started  a  Christ  party  (i  Cor.  1:12). 

So  the  wheels  went  round,  to  the  disgust  of  Paul 
and  of  Apollos.  The  household  of  Chloe  brought  news 
of  the  dreadful  situation  (i  :n).  Paul  wrote  in  great 


APOLLOS  THE  MINISTER  29 

eagerness  to  quell  the  narrow  spirit  of  selfishness  be- 
fore the  church  was  ruined.  He  even  begged  Apollos 
to  go  over  and  see  what  he  could  do  (16:12),  as  some 
of  them  may  have  requested :  "But  as  touching  Apol- 
los the  brother,  I  besought  him  much  to  come  unto 
you  with  the  brethren ;  and  it  was  not  at  all  his  will  to 
come  now ;  but  he  will  come  when  he  shall  have  oppor- 
tunity." Apollos  was  right  to  stay  away,  and  not  to 
fan  the  flame  by  going  back  himself.  He  had  not 
caused  the  trouble;  he  would  not  add  to  it.  Paul 
himself  is  reluctant  to  go  as  yet  (4:i8f.).  They  both 
set  a  good  example  for  preachers  when  a  church  is 
divided  over  the  ministers.  The  world  is  wide  and 
Apollos  went  elsewhere.  We  last  hear  of  him  in  Crete 
as  the  bearer  with  Zenas  the  lawyer  of  Paul's  Epistle 
to  Titus  (Tit.  3:13).  Some  of  the  early  writers  say 
that  he  went  back  to  Corinth  after  some  years ;  but  it  is 
plain  that  Apollos  and  Paul  continued  to  be  friends. 
A  gifted  man  like  Apollos  is  the  very  kind  of  man 
to  cause  misunderstanding  by  his  brilliant  epigrams 
and  the  charm  of  his  style.  One  can  only  do  the  best 
that  he  can  and  go  on.  But  God  has  use  for  a  bril- 
liant scholar  like  Apollos,  yes,  and  like  Paul.  Each 
must  do  his  work  in  his  own  way.  If  people  praise 
him,  well  and  good.  If  not,  "then  shall  each  man 
have  his  praise  from  God"  (i  Cor.  4:5).  "With  me 
it  is  a  very  small  thing  that  I  should  be  judged  of  you" 
(4:3).  Paul  is  not  resentful  or  defiant  in  these  words, 
but  he  does  hold  himself  above  the  petty  scorn  or  praise 
of  the  gossips  in  Corinfti.  The  froth  and  the  foam 
pass  away,  but  the  name  and  the  work  of  Apollos  re- 
main as  part  of  the  glory  of  Christianity. 


CHAPTER  II 

BARNABAS  THE  YOUNG  PREACHER'S 
FRIEND 

One  cannot  resist  the  feeling  that  Barnabas  is  not 
properly  rated  by  modern  Christians.  This  defect  is' 
partly  due  to  the  fact  that  Luke  does  not  trace  his 
career  after  Chapter  15  of  Acts.  He  drops  from  view 
under  the  shadow  of  the  disagreement  with  Paul  whose 
steps  Luke  traces  all  the  way  to  Rome.  And  then  we 
have  no  authentic  writing  of  Barnabas.  Tertullian 
and  other  writers  in  the  West  attribute  to  Barnabas 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  but  the  bare  possibility  of 
that  theory  is  all  that  can  be  admitted.  Clement  of 
Alexandria  quotes  the  so-called  Epistle  of  Barnabas' 
as  the  work  of  Paul's  companion.  Origen  speaks  of 
the  Catholic  Epistle  of  Barnabas  and  Eusebius  men- 
tions the  Epistle  of  Barnabas.  The  Codex  Sinaiticus1 
gives  it  after  the  Apocalypse  of  John,  showing  that  it 
was  esteemed  highly  in  Alexandria,  and  was  read  in 
some  churches.  But  the  writer  is  so  hostile  to  the 
Mosaic  law  that  it  seems  impossible  to  credit  it  to 
Joseph  Barnabas.  Some  other  Barnabas  may  have 
written  it.  McGiffert  ("Apostolic  Age,"  p.  598f.) 
pleads  for  the  idea  that  Barnabas  wrote  i  Peter,  but  not 
with  convincing  arguments.1  We  may  pass  by  the1 

*Moffatt  ("Introduction  to  Literature  of  the  New  Testament," 
pp.  343  n.,  437)  shows  that  Barnabas  had  no  reason  to  conceal  his 
authorship  if  he  wrote  the  epistle. 

30 


BARNABAS  THE  PREACHER'S  FRIEND      31 

Apocryphal  Gospel  and  the  Acts  under  the  name  of 
Barnabas.  The  result  is  that  we  are  left  with  no  clearly1 
known  writing  of  Barnabas  by  which  we  may  measure 
his  life  and  teachings.  We  are  wholly  dependent  upon 
Acts  and  Paul's  Epistles  for  our  knowledge  of  this 
great  figure  in  early  Christian  history.  There  are 
traditions  that  he  was  one  of  the  seventy  sent  forth 
by  Jesus  (Luke  10:1),  that  he  preached  the  gospel  in 
Rome,  that  he  was  the  founder  of  the  Church  in  Milan, 
that  he  worked  in  Cyprus  till  his  death  at  Salamis  in 
A.D.  61.  But  Luke  and  Paul  enable  us  to  gain  a  clear 
picture  of  Barnabas  if  we  piece  together  all  the  inci- 
dents wherein  he  figures.  At  the  Conference  in 
Jerusalem  (Acts  15:1-29;  Gal.  2:1-10),  assuming 
the  identity  of  the  visits,  the  five  foremost  figures  are 
Paul  and  Barnabas  on  one  side,  Peter,  James  and  John 
on  the  other,  in  the  private  conference  when  the  pro- 
gramme was  drawn  up  and  the  concordat  reached. 
Light  foot l  hardly  does  Barnabas  justice  in  his  able 
discussion  of  "St.  Paul  and  the  Three."  Barnabas, 
from  this  standpoint,  is  a  mere  figurehead.  And  yet 
twice  in  Acts  15  the  order  is  "Barnabas  and  Paul." 
Barnabas  spoke  before  Paul  (15:12)  as  the  better 
known  in  Jerusalem  and  less  offensive  to  the  Church 
there.  In  the  Letter  to  the  Antioch  Church  we  read: 
"'our  beloved  Barnabas  and  Paul,  men  that  have 
hazarded  their  lives  for  the  name  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ"  (i5:25f.).  Elsewhere,  save  in  Acts  14:14, 
after  Acts  13:43,  Luke  has  it  Paul  and  Barnabas. 
Renan  2  pointedly  says  of  Barnabas  :  "After  St.  Paul, 

1  "Commentary  on  Galatians,"  pp.   129-212. 
1  "The  Apostles,"  tr.,  p.  124. 


32  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

he  was  the  most  active  missionary  of  the  first  century." 
Renan  x  pleads  that  "Barnabas  won  at  the  hands  of  the 
Christian  world  the  highest  degree  of  merit."  Renan 
would  apparently  rank  Barnabas  next  to  Paul.  That 
is  too  high  a  place  for  him  when  one  considers  John 
and  Peter.  But  he  is  entitled  to  stand  with  James,  the 
Lord's  brother,  in  the  group  of  foremost  men  of  his 
generation. 

I.       A  LIBERAL  CONTRIBUTOR  TO  THE  POOR  SAINTS 
IN   JERUSALEM 

It  is  in  this  capacity  that  we  first  hear  of  him  (Acts 
4,  36f.).  His  name  is  Joseph,  but  not  the  Joseph 
Barsabbas  Justus  of  Acts  1 123.  His  home  was  in  the 
island  of  Cyprus  and,  though  a  Levite,  he  owned  prop- 
erty (probably  there).  Originally  the  Levites  owned 
no  land  (Num.  18:20),  but  the  case  of  Jeremiah 
(Jer-  33:7-I5)  shows  that  the  rule  was  not  always 
strictly  observed,  for  a  Levite  could  buy  or  inherit  a 
piece  of  land.  But  in  the  new  Christian  community, 
where  most  had  little  wealth,  this  Levitical  irregularity 
(Furneaux,  "Acts,"  p.  68)  may  have  stood  in  the  way 
of  the  influence  of  Barnabas.  There  was  no  compul- 
sion, but  the  voluntary  surrender  of  all  for  the  good 
of  the  whole  at  once  gave  Barnabas  a  place  of  promi- 
nence and  power  in  the  Jerusalem  Church,  to  the  envy 
of  Ananias  and  Sapphira. 

Now  Barnabas  had  shown  himself  the  true  Levite 
with  the  Lord  as  his  portion.  He  had  spiritual  wealth 
(Rackham,  "Acts,"  p.  63)  that  far  outweighed  the 
value  of  his  land.  The  use  of  the  singular  (r6 

laThe  Apostles,"  p.  191. 


BARNABAS  THE  PREACHER'S  FRIEND      33 

implies  that  Barnabas  gave  the  total  value  of  the  sale 
to  the  support  of  the  poor  saints,  quite  in  contrast  to 
the  duplicity  of  Ananias  and  Sapphira.  Our  first 
picture  of  Barnabas  is  that  of  a  man  of  generous  sym- 
pathies with  the  common  people  in  spite  of  his  more 
aristocratic  affiliations.  He  was  a  cousin  of  John 
Mark  (Col.  4:10)  whose  mother,  Mary,  was  likewise 
a  woman  of  some  wealth  since  her  home  in  Jerusalem 
was  the  gathering  place  of  the  Jerusalem  Christians 
(Acts  12:12). 

It  is  probable  that  Joseph,  the  Cyprian  Levite,  iden- 
tified himself  thoroughly  with  the  Jerusalem  Church, 
and  perhaps  made  his  home  with  Mary.  Luke  men- 
tions at  this  point  the  surname  of  Barnabas  that  was 
given  him  by  the  apostles,  possibly  at  a  later  time, 
though  his  unselfish  generosity  already  predisposed  all 
to  cherish  the  most  kindly  sentiments  toward  him. 

Luke  translates  Barnabas  by  "son  of  exhortation" 
(vlos  7rapaKXi7<7€ws) ,  though  the  Greek  covers  also  the 
ideas  of  consolation  and  of  encouragement.  There  is 
no  English  word  that  can  carry  all  these  ideas,  and 
we  face  the  same  difficulty  with  the  term  "Paraclete'* 
for  the  Holy  Spirit.  Scholars  are  not  agreed  as  to 
the  etymology  of  the  word  Barnabas.  The  Aramaic 
Bar  means  son,  and  Nabas  may  be  connected  with  the 
Hebrew  Nebi  (prophet),  son  of  prophecy,  or  with  the 
A  ir^aic  Nevahak,  refreshment.  But  Deissmann l 
argues  that  Barnabas  is  really  Barnebous,  Son  of 
Nebo,  a  name  found  in  a  Syrian  inscription.  At  any 
rate,  there  is  no  doubt  that  Joseph  was  worthy  of  the 
surname.  He  was  a  prophet  and  a  teacher  (Acts 

1  "Bible  Studies,"  pp.   i87f.,  307-310. 


34$  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

13:1),  and  an  apostle  (Acts  14:14).  He  was 
worthy  of  all  these  titles,  as  we  shall  see.  He  was  not 
one  of  the  twelve,  as  Paul  was  not,  but,  like  James  the 
Lord's  brother  (Gal.  1 119),  he  was  an  apostle  in  the 
wider  sense  of  the  term.  In  the  early  years  in  Jerusa- 
lem Joseph  Barnabas  was  a  tower  of  strength  for  the 
young  Church. 

II.      SPONSOR  FOR  SAUL  WHEN   UNDER  SUSPICION 

It  may  seem  strange  that  the  conversion  of  Saul  was 
at  most  only  a  rumour  in  Jerusalem  after  the  space  of 
some  three  years.  But  Saul  spent  most  of  that  time  in 
Arabia,  and  his  own  conduct  as  the  leader  of  the 
Pharisaic  persecution  in  Jerusalem  was  enough  to 
throw  suspicion  upon  any  reports  of  his  change  of 
heart  and  life  in  Damascus.  Besides,  the  Sanhedrin 
may  have  spread  sinister  rumours  about  Saul's  prob- 
able motives  in  his  avowal  of  Christianity.  His  pro- 
longed absence  from  Jerusalem  was  in  itself  peculiar, 
and  he  brought  .no  letters  of  recommendation  from 
the  Christians  in  Damascus.  It  is  not  easy  to  live  down 
one's  past.  The  very  completeness  of  Saul's  work  of 
destruction  in  Jerusalem  made  it  all  the  more  impera- 
tive that  no  mistake  be  made  this  time.  The  wolf 
might  throw  off  the  sheep's  clothing  and  again  ravin 
the  fold.  Saul  had  come  "to  visit  Cephas"  (to-rop^crat 
K77<£av,  Gal.  I  :i8).  He  had  not  come  to  be  inducted 
into  his  apostolic  office.  That  authority  he  had  re- 
ceived from  the  Lord  Jesus,  not  from  man  (Gal.  I  :i). 
But  Saul  wished  to  carry  on  his  Gentile  mission  in 
harmony  with  the  apostles,  and  there  was  much  that  he 
could  learn  about  the  earthly  life  of  Jesus  from  Simon 


BARNABAS  THE  PREACHER'S  FRIEND      35 

Peter  during  these  two  weeks.  It  is  probable  that 
Peter  and  Barnabas  were  both  staying  at  the  home  of 
Mary  (Acts  12:12).  No  other  apostles  were  present 
in  Jerusalem  at  the  time  save  James  the  Lord's  brother 
(Gal.  1:19).  Evidently  Peter  and  James,  as  well  as 
the  other  disciples,  were  full  of  fear.  "They  were  all 
afraid  of  him"  (^di/res  Ifo&ovvTo  avr6v,  Acts  9:26). 
The  imperfect  tense  pictures  the  shrinking  away  from 
Saul  as  he  presented  himself.  "He  essayed  to  join  him- 
self to  the  disciples"  (kirdpafcv  Ko\\a<r0ai\  TOIS  fiadrjrals) . 
The  imperfect  tense  again  shows  that  Saul  did  not 
give  up  without  a  struggle.  He  was  deeply  mortified 
beyond  a  doubt.  "Saul's  nature  could  ill  brook  mis- 
trust ;  and  there  might  have  been  unhappy  consequences 
but  for  the  work  of  a  mediator"  (Rackham,  "Acts," 
in  loco).  To  put  it  bluntly,  they  did  not  believe  that 
Saul  was  a  genuine  disciple,  not  even  his  own  repeated 
statements  to  that  effect.  Saul  stood  discredited  before 
the  very  man  whom  he  had  come  to  visit  as  a  brother 
and  co-worker.  The  memory  of  Saul's  fierce  hatred 
of  these  men  flared  up  like  a  flame.  Criticism  and  fear 
demanded  that  Saul  furnish  proof  of  his  sincerity 
before  he  be  received  as  a  brother  in  Christ.  It  was 
a  crucial  moment  for  Saul  and  for  Christianity.  A 
fatal  misunderstanding  at  this  moment  might  have 
had  the  most  disastrous  consequences. 

"But  Barnabas  took  him  (cTrtXa/36/ieyos,,  taking  hold 
of  by  the  hand,  literally)  and  brought  him  ( fjyayev, 
perhaps  with  some  reluctance  now  on  Saul's  part)  to 
the  apostles  (irp6s  TOVS  dTrooroXovs,  face  to  face  with 
Peter  and  James)."  Not  simply  did  Barnabas  do  that, 
but  he  "declared  unto  them  how  he  had  seen  the  Lord 


36  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

in  the  way,  and  that  he  had  spoken  to  him,  and  how 
at  Damascus  he  had  preached  boldly  in  the  name  of 
Jesus"  (Acts  9:27).  Saul  himself  had  told  his  story 
to  Barnabas,  who  now  vouched  for  the  correctness  of 
it  and  for  the  genuineness  of  his  conversion.  It  was 
a  bold  and  a  noble  thing  to  do.  It  may  well  be  that 
Saul  and  Barnabas  had  been  friends  at  the  university 
of  Tarsus  before  they  were  Christians,  the  one  a 
Levite  from  Cyprus,  the  other  the  Pharisee  from 
Tarsus,  both  Hellenists  and  loyal  young  Jews.  "It 
was  he  who  appreciated  Paul;  it  was  to 'him  that  the 
Church  owes  the  most  extraordinary  of  her  founders. 
.  .  .  Among  the  causes  of  the  faith  of  the  world  we 
must  count  the  generous  movement  of  Barnabas, 
stretching  out  his  hand  to  the  suspected  and  forsaken 
Paul;  the  profound  intuition  which  led  him  to  dis- 
cover the  soul  of  an  apostle  under  that  humiliated  air ; 
the  frankness  with  which  he  broke  the  ice  and  levelled 
the  obstacles  raised,  bet  ween  the  convert  and  his  new 
brethren  by  the  unfortunate  antecedents  of  the  former, 
and  perhaps,  also,  by  certain  traits  of  his  character."  x 
This  tribute  to  Barnabas  is  not  overdone.  The  life  of 
Barnabas  seems  to  be  devoted  to  the  ministry  of  those 
in  distress.  It  is  a  noble  ministry  for  any  life.  Saul 
and  Peter  and  James  could  each  tell  how  they  had  seen 
the  Risen  Christ.2  As  a  result  of  the  friendship  of 
Barnabas  Saul  "was  with  them  going  in  and  going 
out  at  Jerusalem"  (Acts  9:28),  received  on  terms  of 
perfect  equality  as  the  guest  of  Simon  Peter.  It  is 

1  Renan,  "The  Apostles,"  p.  191. 

*  Swete,  "The  Appearances  of  Our  Lord  after  the  Resurrec- 
tion," p.  88. 


BARNABAS  THE  PREACHER'S  FRIEND     37 

a  high  sort  of  courage  to  champion  the  cause  of  a  dis- 
credited man.  The  Sanhedrin  looked  upon  Saul  as  a 
renegade  Jew.  The  disciples  feared  him  as  a  hypocrite. 
Barnabas  took  him  as  a  brother  beloved  and  risked  all 
his  own  great  reputation  to  save  Saul  to  Christianity. 
When  the  Hellenists  in  Jerusalem  threatened  to  kill 
Saul  as  he  had  led  them  to  stone  Stephen,  "the  breth- 
ren knew  it,"  possibly  Barnabas  being  the  first  to  see 
Saul's  peril,  and  "they  brought  him  down  to  Caesarea, 
and  sent  him  forth  to  Tarsus"  (Acts  9:30). 

III.      CHAMPION    OF  THE   GREEK    CHRISTIANS   IN 
ANTIOCH 

Events  moved  rapidly.  The  ministry  of  Philip  in 
Samaria  led  to  the  visit  of  Peter  and  John  to  investi- 
gate the  work  of  grace  among  these  half-Jews  (Acts 
8:i4ff).  The  visit  to  Peter  and  the  six  brethren  to 
Cornelius  (Acts  10),  a  God-fearing  Roman  and 
proselyte  of  the  gate  in  Csesarea,  made  quite  a  stir 
among  the  Pharisaic  party  in  the  Jerusalem  Church 
who  called  Peter  to  account  for  his  mingling  with  the 
Gentiles  (Acts  n  :i-i8).  But  the  word  of  God  is  not 
bound,  as  Peter  had  found  out  though  with  difficulty. 
Men  of  Cyprus  and  Cyrene  went  as  far  as  Antioch 
and  "spake  unto  the  Greeks  also  (correct  text,  in  spite 
of  Aleph  and  B),  preaching  the  Lord  Jesus"  (Acts 
ii  120).  There  was  already  a  Samaritan  Church  from 
Philip's  work  and  a  Roman  Church  in  Caesarea  from 
Peter's  work.  Now  a  Greek  Church  had  sprung  up  in 
Antioch,  the  third  city  of  the  Roman  Empire.  The 
situation  was  a  delicate  one,  and  called  for  careful 
handling.  It  is  proof  of  the  high  position  of  Barnabas 


38  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

in  the  Jerusalem  Church  that  he  was  chosen  (Acts  II : 
22)  as  a  committee  of  one  (cf.  Acts  8:14)  to  inves- 
tigate conditions  in  Antioch,  for  "a  great  number  that 
believed  turned  unto  the  Lord"  (Acts  11:21).  The 
Pharisaic  party  in  Jerusalem  had  acquiesced  reluctantly 
in  what  had  happened  in  Csesarea  (Acts  11:18). 
They  were  evidently  alarmed  at  the  sudden  turn  of 
events  in  Antioch.  Barnabas  was  himself  from 
Cyprus,  and  may  have  known  some  of  the  brethren 
from  the  island.  Besides,  he  was  a  Hellenist  and  so 
better  able  to  appreciate  their  feelings  towards  these 
Greek  Christians,  perhaps  proselytes  of  the  gate  like 
Cornelius,  while,  as  a  Levite,  he  could  be  trusted  to 
understand  Hebrew  prejudices  (Furneaux,  "Acts," 
p.  173).  All  classes  in  the  Jerusalem  Church  had  con- 
fidence in  Barnabas  and  in  his  ability  to  do  justice  to 
the  new  movement  and  to  decide  whether  it  was  of  God. 
Barnabas  fully  justified  their  choice  of  him  as  the 
commissioner  in  this  crisis.  Luke  pauses  to  bestow 
a  eulogy  on  Barnabas,  quite  out  of  his  usual  style. 
It  is  possible  that  Barnabas  was  dead  when  Luke  wrote, 
"for  he  was  a  good  man"  (n  124),  perhaps  recently 
deceased.  At  any  rate  Luke  is  fully  aware  of  the  sig- 
nificance of  the  occasion  when  Barnabas  reaches 
Antioch  with  the  future  of  Greek  Christians  in  his 
hands.  He  knows  what  the  Judaisers  had  tried  to  do 
to  Peter  in  Jerusalem.  Barnabas  exhibits  consummate 
wisdom  at  Antioch,  and  not  the  least  element  of  his 
wisdom  is  his  staying  there  with  the  Greek  Christians 
and  not  returning  to  Jerusalem  to  make  a  report  for 
over  a  year.  Barnabas  at  once  saw  that  the  work  was 
due  to  the  grace  of  God,  and  he  was  glad  (11:23), 


BARNABAS  THE  PREACHER'S  FRIEND      39 

"A  smaller  man  would  have  raised  difficulties"  (Fur- 
neaux,  "Acts,"  p.  173).  But  Barnabas  was  able  to 
rise  above  his  Jewish  prejudices  and  to  recognise  the 
change  wrought  in  the  lives  of  these  Greeks.  He  saw 
that  a  new  era  had  come  and  that  God  had  broken  down 
the  middle  wall  of  partition  and  had  saved  these  Greeks 
without  their  becoming  Jews.  Barnabas  was  not  the 
man  to  lay  the  burden  of  Jewish  ceremonialism  on 
these  Christian  freemen.  So  "he  exhorted  them  all, 
that  with  purpose  of  heart  they  would  cleave  unto  the 
Lord"  (Acts  n  123).  He  kept  on  exhorting  (Trape/cdXei ) 
them,  for  reaction  would  come  after  the  first  enthusi- 
asm of  the  new  faith.  Barnabas  saw  this  peril,  and 
laid  himself  out  to  make  the  work  of  grace  permanent 
( irpoffphciv  ) . 

He  accepted  the  new  order  as  a  fact.  He  readjusted 
his  theology,  if  necessary,  to  suit  the  evident  work  of 
God,  as  Peter  had  done  at  Csesarea.  But  Barnabas  re- 
quired no  vision  on  the  housetop  to  see  the  new  truth 
that  God  is  no  respecter  of  persons  (Acts  10 134).  The 
average  Jew  had  the  same  pride  of  race  that  the  Ger- 
mans had  before  their  defeat  at  the  hands  of  the  Allies. 
Luke  tells  us  how  it  came  to  pass  that  Barnabas  was 
able  to  see  so  clearly  the  hand  of  God  in  the  spiritual 
revolution  going  on  in  Antioch.  "He  was  a  good  man" 
(&yaQ6s,  11:24),  a  kindly  and  a  generous  man,  who 
was  able  to  let  the  facts  sweep  away  his  prejudices. 
He  had  convictions,  but  he  was  able  to  see  facts  that 
contravened  them  and  to  accept  them  openly  and 
frankly.  This  is  a  severe  test  of  character,  and  Bar- 
nabas stood  it.  He  was  "full  of  the  Holy  Spirit." 
He  was  an  inspired  man  in  the  true  sense  of  that 


40  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

phrase.  He  had  the  gift  of  parade  sis  from  the  Para- 
clete. As  a  spirit-filled  man,  he  was  able  to  try  the 
spirits  and  to  discern  the  true  work  of  grace  when 
he  saw  it.  He  was  a  man  "of  faith,"  and  so  was  able, 
to  trust  God  for  the  future  of  this  work  without  undue 
restrictions  on  the  liberty  of  the  brethren.  He  accepted 
the  Greek  Christians  as  fully  on  a  par  with  the  Jewish 
Christians.  The  whole  Church  lived  free  from  the 
Jewish  ceremonial  restrictions  (Acts  15:1;  Gal.  2:11- 
14).  Barnabas  was  a  son  of  exhortation,  consolation, 
and  encouragement  to  these  Greek  Christians. 

IV.      FINDING  A   PLACE   FOR   SAUL   IN   ANTIOCH 

The  work  grew  mightily  under  the  care  of  Barnabas. 
"And  much  people  was  added  unto  the  Lord"  (Acts  1 1 : 
25).  He  saw  that  he  needed  help,  and  he  knew  where 
to  go.  He  did  not  go  to  Jerusalem.  He  wished  to 
bring  no  disturbing  element  into  the  life  of  the  Greek 
Church  in  Antioch.  Barnabas  knew  the  man  for  this 
emergency.  Tarsus  was  not  very  far  from  Antioch. 
Saul  had  not  been  idle  during  the  years  since  he  left 
Jerusalem  in  flight  for  his  life.  He  had  been  preach- 
ing in  Syria  and  Cilicia  (Gal.  1:21).  In  his  own  way 
Saul  had  probably  preached  to  the  Gentiles  in  these 
regions  and  not  without  success,  for  we  read  of 
churches  here  at  a  later  period  (Acts  15:41).  Bar- 
nabas believed  in  Saul  in  spite  of  his  stormy  career  so 
far.  He  was  sure  that  this  man  was  a  chosen  vessel 
of  God  for  this  very  work  among  the  Gentiles.  He 
determined  to  get  Saul  to  Antioch  so  that  the  man 
and  the  hour  could  meet.  I  find  it  hard  to  believe  that 


BARNABAS  THE  PREACHER'S  FRIEND   41 

the  Church  in  Jerusalem  had  instructed  Barnabas  to 
send  for  Saul  if  he  needed  his  services.  It  is  rather 
the  insight  into  character  that  enabled  Barnabas  to  see 
that  Saul  was  the  master  mind  to  meet  this  great  crisis. 
The  door  was  open  in  Antioch  for  Saul,  and  Barnabas 
"had  none  of  the  littleness  which  cannot  bear  the  pres- 
ence of  a  possible  rival"  (Furneaux,  "Acts,"  p.  174). 
The  language  of  Luke  implies  that  Barnabas  was  not 
sure  that  he  would  find  Saul  in  Tarsus,  but  he  went 
forth  on  this  quest  and  found  him  and  brought  him 
to  Antioch  (Acts  n:25f.).  The  result  justified  the 
wisdom  of  Barnabas.  He  had  blessed  the  church  in 
Antioch,  and  he  had  given  Saul  his  great  opportunity. 
Renan  overdoes  the  matter  in  saying  that  Saul  "was 
at  Tarsus  in  a  forced  repose,  which  to  an  active  man 
like  him  was  a  perfect  torture"  ("The  Apostles,"  p. 
207),  but  Barnabas  did  forget  himself  and  prepared 
the  field  for  the  genius  of  Saul.  "All  this  is  certainly 
the  very  climax  of  virtue;  and  this  is  what  Barnabas 
did  for  Paul.  Most  of  the  glory  which  is  due  to  the 
latter  is  really  due  to  the  modest  .man  who  led  him 
forward"  (ibid.).  Barnabas  and  Saul  had  a  happy 
year  in  Antioch.  Here  the  disciples  first  won  the  name 
of  Christians,  for  they  were  not  Jews  and  not  heathen. 
Finally  Barnabas  and  Saul  went  to  Jerusalem  with  a 
generous  gift  from  the  Greek  Church  in  Antioch  to  the 
poor  Jewish  saints  in  Jerusalem  (Acts  n  :29f.)  at  the 
time  of  the  famine  about  A.D.  42-4.  The  Judaisers 
apparently  made  no  protest,  and  the  apostles  were 
seemingly  absent  when  they  arrived.  Barnabas  had 
saved  the  day  for  Greek  Christians  and  had  saved 
Saul  for  his  great  work  in  the  world.  "Thus  twice 


42  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

over  did  Barnabas  save  Saul  for  the  work  of  Chris- 
tianity" (Farrar). 

V.      ABLE  TO  TAKE  SECOND  PLACE  FOR  THE  GOOD 
OF  THE  CAUSE 

Barnabas  maintained  his  position  of  leadership  in 
Antioch  on  their  return  from  Jerusalem  (Acts  12 : 
25).  In  the  great  church  at  Antioch  a  democratic 
spirit  prevailed.  Five  prophets  and  teachers  are  men- 
tioned (Acts  13:1)  apparently  in  two  groups  (re — re) 
of  three  prophets  (Barnabas,  Symeon  called  Niger, 
Lucius  of  Cyrene)  and  two  teachers  (Manaen,  foster- 
brother  of  Herod  the  tetrarch,  and  Saul).  The 
primacy  of  Barnabas  is  above  dispute,  and  Saul  comes 
last  in  the  list  as  a  newcomer,  possibly  the  latest  to 
join  the  band  of  leaders  in  Antioch.  The  other  three 
may  have  been  "the  pioneers  of  Gentile  evangelisation 
at  Antioch"  (Furneaux,  "Acts,"  p.  191).  They  all 
three  had  Gentile  affiliations.  The  five  names  repre- 
sent five  different  countries,  and  too  much  difference 
between  prophet  and  teacher  is  not  to  be  insisted  on 
here  (i  Cor.  14:3).  The  same  man  could  have  both 
gifts.  Luke  is  a  true  historian  in  preserving  the  proper 
perspective  here.  He  does  not  allow  Saul's  future 
greatness  to  dim  the  glory  of  Barnabas,  the  real  leader 
at  this  stage  of  the  history  of  Christian  missions.  Dr. 
George  Milligan  (art.  "Barnabas,"  Hastings's  D.B.) 
illustrates  how  hard  it  is  to  preserve  the  historical  per- 
spective when  he  writes :  "Barnabas  accompanied 
Saul  (or,  as  he  was  now  to  be  known,  Paul)  on  his 
first  missionary  journey."  The  Holy  Spirit  names  the 
two  men  selected  for  the  first  great  missionary  cam- 


BARNABAS  THE  PREACHER'S  FRIEND      43 

paign  among  the  Gentiles  with  Barnabas  as  chief  (Acts 
13:2).  This  order  is  a  matter  of  course  with  the 
Antioch  Church,  for  no  one  at  this  date  can  challenge 
the  positon  of  Barnabas  in  their  esteem.  They  honour 
Saul  and  are  glad  to  see  him  named  as  the  lieutenant 
of  Barnabas  in  the  enterprise.  The  hearty  prayers  of 
the  community  of  disciples  go  with  the  two  great 
leaders  as  they  are  formally  set  apart  to  their  special 
mission.  We  are  not  to  think  of  this  occasion  as 
ordination  to  the  ministry  or  to  the  apostolic  office. 
Barnabas  and  Saul  had  long  been  fulfilling  both  func- 
tions. It  is  rather  a  prayerful  dedication  to  the  special 
task  of  the  dangerous  and  unknown  enterprise  which 
they  are  undertaking  like  a  farewell  service  to  mis- 
sionaries now.  The  Church  at  Antioch  seemed  to  feel 
that  it  was  a  great  step  forward.  There  is  no  evidence 
that  they  undertook  to  finance  the  new  departure,  but 
they  did  agree  for  their  two  best  leaders  to  go  and 
their  prayers  went  with  them.  There  was  no  oppo- 
sition and  no  saying  that  there  were  heathen  enough 
in  Antioch.  It  was  a  time  of  great  spiritual  enthusi- 
asm when  Barnabas  and  Saul,  with  John  Mark  as 
attendant,  set  forth  upon  their  epoch-making  journey. 
It  is  clearly  Barnabas  who  took  along  his  cousin  John 
Mark.  And  yet  before  they  leave  Cyprus  Saul  (Paul) 
has  leaped  to  the  fore  as  the  leader  of  the  party.  We 
shall  never  be  able  to  explain  precisely  how  it  all  hap- 
pened. Beyond  a  doubt  Paul  was  the  abler  man  with 
more  of  the  spark  of  genius.  Barnabas  was  glad  to 
have  him  use  his  great  powers  of  speech  in  various 
emergencies.  In  a  new  environment  Paul  was  no 
longer  under  the  shadow  of  Barnabas' s  great  reputa- 


44  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

tion  in  Antioch.  The  case  of  Elymas  was  very  pro- 
voking as  he  tried  to  break  the  influence  of  Barnabas 
and  Saul  over  Sergius  Paulus.  Evidently  Paul's 
nature  could  stand  it  no  longer.  The  explosive  power 
of  Paul  on  this  occasion  (Acts  13:6-12)  probably 
amazed  Barnabas  and  revealed  the  tremendous  energy 
®f  his  fellow-labourer.  There  is  no  sign  of  resent- 
ment on  the  part  of  Barnabas  as  he  sees  his  assistant 
take  the  lead.  After  all  Paul  is  the  pride  of  Barnabas, 
and  he  can  rejoice  that  God  has  allowed  him  to  bring 
to  the  front  this  great  exponent  of  the  faith.  Luke 
quietly  notes  that  "Paul  and  his  company  set  sail  from 
Paphos,  and  came  to  Perga  in  Pamphylia"  (Acts  13 : 
13).  John  Mark  apparently  disliked  the  new  state  of 
affairs,  and  went  back  to  Jerusalem,  but  Barnabas  went 
on  with  Paul.  He  was  too  great  a  man  to  break  up  the 
partnership  because  Paul  was  manifestly  the  greater 
and  more  useful  preacher.  "In  nothing  is  the  great- 
ness of  Barnabas  more  manifest  than  in  his  recognition 
of  the  superiority  of  Paul  and  acceptance  of  a  sec- 
ondary place  for  himself"  (Furneaux,  "Acts,"  p.  203). 
It  was  Paul  who  "stood  up"  in  response  to  the  invita- 
tion from  the  rulers  of  the  synagogue  to  the  "breth- 
ren" to  speak  in  Antioch  in  Pisidia  (Acts  13:15^). 
"Many  of  the  Jews  and  of  the  devout  proselytes  fol- 
lowed Paul  and  Barnabas"  (13:43)  when  the  syna- 
gogue broke  up.  On  the  next  Sabbath  Paul  was 
again  the  speaker  till  the  uproar  came  when  "Paul  and 
Barnabas  spake  out  boldly"  (13:46).  So  they  stirred 
persecution  against  Paul  and  Barnabas  (Acts  13:50). 
At  Lystra  Paul  was  the  speaker  again  (14:9),  with 
the  result  that  the  natives  took  Paul  to  be  Mercury 


BARNABAS  THE  PREACHER'S  FRIEND     45 

and  Barnabas  Jupiter,  a  tribute  to  the  finer  personal 
appearance  of  Barnabas,  as  well  as  to  Paul's  eloquence 
as  "the  chief  speaker."  Here  again  Luke  reflects  the 
local  atmosphere  when  he  mentions  "Barnabas  and 
Paul"  (14:14).  But  Barnabas  apparently  maintained 
his  serenity,  and  the  two  apostles  came  back  to  Antioch 
with  a  glorious  report  of  God's  blessing.  The  door 
of  faith  had  been  opened  to  the  Gentiles  (14:27). 

VI.       EXPONENT    OF    GENTILE    FREEDOM 

It  was  a  time  of  rejoicing  in  Antioch,  and  no  doubt 
Paul's  stature  loomed  larger  in  the  minds  of  the 
Church  there  than  before.  When  the  Judaisers  from 
Jerusalem  appeared  in  Antioch  with  their  abrupt  de- 
mand that  the  Gentile  Christians  be  circumcised  after 
the  custom  of  Moses  (Acts  15:1)  Paul  and  Barnabas 
took  a  firm  stand  against  them.  No  doubt  Paul  re- 
vealed himself  to  the  Church  at  Antioch  as  the  real 
leader  by  his  powerful  exposition  of  liberty  in  Christ. 
This  new  appreciation  of  Paul  appears  in  the  appoint- 
ment of  "Paul  and  Barnabas"  with  certain  others  to 
go  to  Jerusalem  for  a  conference  on  this  grave  prob- 
lem (15:2).  It  is  clear  that  the  Greek  Church  at 
Antioch  stood  with  Paul  and  Barnabas.  In  Jerusalem 
Barnabas  nobly  seconded  the  leadership  of  Paul  with 
no  sign  of  jealousy.  It  is  here  assumed  that  Acts  15 
and  Galatians  2  :i-io  refer  to  the  same  event.  The 
point  is  still  in  dispute,  but  the  best  reconciliation  of 
minor  discrepancies  lies  in  the  broad  parallel  of  the 
two  reports.  Luke  gives  only  the  public  aspects  of 
the  meeting,  while  Paul  makes  use  of  the  private  con- 
ference of  the  leaders  to  prove  his  equality  with  the 


twelve.  In  Acts  n  130  "Barnabas  and  Saul"  went  to 
Jerusalem.  In  Acts  15:2,  "Paul  and  Barnabas" 
attended  the  conference  as  in  Galatians,  and  Paul  is 
evidently  leader.  In  both  reports  (Acts  15  and  Gal. 
2)  Peter  and  James  co-operate  with  Paul  and  Barna- 
bas. It  shows  Paul's  wisdom  that  Barnabas  spoke 
before  he  did  at  the  second  public  meeting  (Acts  15: 
12).  In  Jerusalem  "Barnabas  had  a  great  hold,  and 
he  had  here  befriended  Paul.  This  appreciation  of 
Barnabas  is  reflected  in  the  decision  of  the  conference, 
probably  written  by  James,  which  speaks  of  "our  be- 
loved Barnabas  and  Paul"  (Acts  15:25),  but  Luke's 
narrative  in  verse  22  has  Paul  and  Barnabas.  Paul 
made  no  point  of  precedence.  Barnabas  stood  by  him 
loyally  in  Jerusalem,  and  they  won  a  common  victory 
over  the  Judaisers.  But  in  his  own  account  Paul  said : 
"to  me  and  Barnabas"  (Gal.  2:9). 

But  in  Antioch  on  their  return  things  did  not  go 
entirely  well.  At  first  "Paul  and  Barnabas"  taught 
on  as  before  (Acts  15:35)  after  the  season  of  rejoic- 
ing over  the  Gentile  victory.  Paul  and  Barnabas  had 
been  acknowledged  by  the  Jerusalem  leaders  (Peter, 
James  and  John)  as  in  charge  of  the  work  among  the 
Gentiles,  as  they  were  at  the  head  of  the  work  among 
the  Jews  (Gal.  2:7-10).  Paul  did  not  admit  that 
these  "pillars"  were  above  him  and  Barnabas.  He 
had  made  the  issue  acute  in  Jerusalem  by  the  presence 
of  Titus,  a  Greek  Christian,  whose  liberty  was  main- 
tained against  pressure  for  a  compromise.  Peter  and 
James  spoke  for  Paul  in  Jerusalem.  Later,  so  the 
chronology  seems  to  run,  Peter  came  to  Antioch  and 
followed  the  custom  of  Paul  and  Barnabas  in  his 


social  life  with  the  Gentile  Christians  there  (Gal.  2: 
11-15).  He  ate  with  them.  This  was  a  long  step  for- 
ward for  Peter,  a  Palestinian  Jew,  and  the  very  issue 
on  which  he  had  been  arraigned  before  in  Jerusalem 
by  the  Judaisers  (Acts  11:1-18).  The  reappearance 
of  the  Judaisers  in  Antioch  with  the  threat  to  tell  James 
about  Peter  and  to  have  him  up  before  the  Church 
again  quickly  made  a  coward  out  of  Peter.  Social 
equality  had  not  been  passed  upon  by  the  Jerusalem 
conference.  It  was  simply  assumed  here  in  Antioch. 
So  Peter  weakened  and  drew  back.  He  was  followed 
in  this  dissimulation  (hypocrisy,  Paul  calls  it)  by  "the 
rest  of  the  Jews"  till  only  Paul  and  Barnabas  were 
left.  And  then  one  of  the  saddest  things  m  Paul's  life 
happened.  "Even  Barnabas  was  carried  away  by  their 
dissimulation."  There  is  a  tribute  to  Barnabas  in  this 
way  of  speaking  of  his  defection.  Paul  was  now  alone, 
Pandus  contra  mundum.  But  he  did  not  waver.  He 
spoke  to  Peter  face  to  face,  and  seems  to  have  won 
him  back.  Barnabas,  of  course,  changed  again  to  his 
old  view.  The  breach  was  apparently  quickly  healed. 
But  it  is  one  of  those  things  that  can  never  be  undone, 
once  it  has  happened.  Barnabas,  like  Peter,  had 
flickered  in  this  supreme  crisis.  The  reins  of  leader- 
ship were,  for  the  moment,  left  in  Paul's  hands  alone. 
Paul  could  never  quite  forget  that  fact,  nor  could  Bar- 
nabas nor  could  the  church  in  Antioch.  Paul  was  now 
undisputed  leader  of  the  Gentile  Christians.  But  Bar- 
nabas had  wrought  nobly  if  he  did  falter  for  a  moment 
when  Paul  and  Peter  called  him  to  go  different  paths. 
Perhaps  Barnabas  "had  never  really  thought  out  the 
principles  involved,  so  as  to  be  able  to  vindicate  them 


48  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

when  challenged"  (Furneaux,  "Acts,"  p.  248).  It  is 
possible  also  that  John  Mark,  who  was  apparently  now 
in  Antioch  (Acts  15:37),  took  the  side  of  Peter 
against  Paul  with  resentful  memories  of  Perga  (Acts 
13:13),  and  so  helped  pull  his  cousin  Barnabas  away 
from  Paul.  It  is  plain  that  a  sensitive  situation  exists 
in  Antioch  after  Paul's  triumph.  There  was  plenty  of 
explosive  material  at  hand. 

VII.      DEFENDER  OF  MARK'S  RIGHT  TO  A  SECOND 
CHANCE 

Barnabas  is  true  to  his  character  as  friend  of  the 
friendless  to  the  end.  Even  in  his  inconsistent  con- 
duct at  Antioch  one  may  be  able  to  trace  the  course  of 
his  conduct.  He  was  a  conciliating  spirit  always.  He 
befriended  the  Gentile  Christians,  but  he  wished  not 
to  offend  the  Jewish  brethren.  So  he  faced  a  policy 
of  vacillation.  Perhaps  in  Antioch  Barnabas  was  a 
bit  restive  under  Paul's  leadership  after  the  recent 
honours  shown  him  in  Jerusalem.  But  Paul  was  all 
the  more  anxious  to  smooth  things  over  and  to  get 
back  to  normal  relations  with  Barnabas.  The  old 
missionary  hunger  burned  in  Paul  again,  and  he  pro- 
posed to  Barnabas  (Acts  15:36-41)  that  they  go  back 
again  and  visit  their  old  haunts  in  Cyprus  and  Galatia. 
Barnabas  readily  agreed,  even  though  he  was  to  start 
out  this  time  as  Paul's  assistant,  not  as  chief.  But  he 
made  one  suggestion,  that  they  take  along  with  them 
(<rw7rapa\al3elv,  aorist  infinitive)  John  Mark,  who  be- 
gan the  former  tour  with  them.  Instantly  Paul  took 
and  held  (fetov,  imperfect)  a  position  against  that  pro- 
posal. He  could  not  bear  the  idea  of  having  along 


BARNABAS  THE  PREACHER'S  FRIEND     49 


j/,  present  infinitive,  note)  this  man 
who  had  played  the  apostate  (rbv  airoaravTa)  at  Perga. 
Mark  did  not  stick  to  the  work  then  (^  awe\86vTa 
avrols  ets  TO  tpyov}  and  he  might  desert  in  a  pinch 
again.  Hippolytus  calls  Mark  "the  man  with  the  fin- 
ger wanting*  (KoXo/3o5A/cruXos)  because  the  Romans 
marked  a  deserter  by  cutting  off  the  little  finger.  Paul's 
words  stung  Mark  to  the  quick  beyond  a  doubt,  and 
all  the  more  because  of  the  truth  in  them.  Probably 
Paul  was  indignant  afresh  at  Mark  for  taking  sides 
with  Peter  against  him,  and  he  disliked  the  suggestion 
of  Barnabas  all  the  more.  The  old  sore  has  been 
rubbed  again.  There  is  more  in  the  disagreement  be- 
tween Paul  and  Barnabas  than  can  be  put  into  words. 
The  "sharp  contention"  (ira-po^va^,  our  "paroxysm") 
represented  more  than  the  conduct  and  character  of 
John  Mark.  Barnabas  now  let  loose  the  resentment 
at  Paul's  superseding  him  that  he  had  smothered 
hitherto.  Paul  put  into  his  resistance  the  passionate 
heat  because  of  the  dissimulation  of  Barnabas  and  of 
Mark.  The  "son  of  consolation"  shows  ordinary  tem- 
per like  other  men.  The  apostle  who  later  wrote  the 
noblest  hymn  on  love  in  existence  (i  Cor.  13)  is 
unable  to  control  his  own  bitter  thoughts.  The  dis- 
pute has  come  between  these  two  men  who  owe  so 
much  to  each  other.  The  very  debt  of  each  to  the 
other  made  the  parting  all  the  harder  to  bear.  And 
yet  each  was  right  and  each  was  wrong,  as  is  usually 
the  case  in  a  quarrel.  Barnabas  had  himself  but  re- 
cently made  a  false  step  in  his  relations  with  Paul  and 
Peter.  He  was  not  the  man  to  say  that  John  Mark 
should  be  thrown  to  the  scrap-heap  for  his  slip  at 


50  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

Perga.  A  man  is  entitled  to  a  chance  to  come  back. 
No  one  of  us  is  perfect,  not  even  Paul.  And  yet  Paul 
was  unwilling  to  risk  the  work  again  with  a  man  who 
had  failed  and  had  not  yet  made  good.  He  demanded 
that  he  prove  his  mettle  before  he  be  trusted  so  much. 
There  is  no  way  to  settle  an  issue  like  that.  Paul  no 
doubt  had  the  best  of  the  argument  so  far  as  logic 
goes,  but  Barnabas  would  not  turn  Mark  down,  not 
even  for  Paul.  So  they  parted  company,  apparently 
abruptly.  Barnabas  took  Mark  with  him  and  sailed 
away  to  Cyprus  and  drops  out  of  Luke's  narrative. 
It  seems  clear  that  the  sympathy  of  the  Church  at 
Antioch  is  with  Paul  and  Silas,  who  takes  the  place 
of  Barnabas.  Paul  has  completely  ousted  Barnabas 
in  the  affections  of  the  Church  at  Antioch  to  which 
Barnabas  had  brought  Paul.  This  is  one  of  the 
tragedies  of  the  ministry,  that  great  men  cannot  always 
work  together.  But  they  can  at  least  work  separately. 
Often  more  work  is  thus  accomplished.  The  world 
is  wide  and  the  work  is  pressing.  Our  hearts  go  with 
Barnabas  in  tender  interest.  One  could  wish  that 
Luke  had  told  us  something  of  the  closing  years  of 
Barnabas.  Certainly  he  and  Paul  suffered  because  of 
the  estrangement.  There  was  no  way  to  avoid  that. 
But  time  heals  many  things.  Neither  of  these  great 
men  was  the  man  to  cherish  bitterness.  We  may  be 
sure  that  Barnabas  was  not  idle.  He  did  a  good  turn 
by  John  Mark,  as  he  had  done  by  Paul.  He  helped  to 
shape  him  for  greater  usefulness.  When  Mark  ap- 
pears later  with  Peter  (i  Pet.  5:13)  and  Paul  (Col. 
4:10;  2  Tim.  4:11),  he  is  useful  for  ministering  to 
the  aged  Paul.  This  change  in  Mark  is  largely  due 


BARNABAS  THE  PREACHER'S  FRIEND     51 

to  Barnabas,  who  befriended  the  young  preacher  in  his 
hour  of  crisis.  It  is  a  great  gift  to  be  able  to  pick  up 
and  to  patch  up  men.  Barnabas  knew  how  to  do  it. 
When  men  differed,  he  had  to  make  his  choice.  But 
the  great  work  that  he  did  for  Christianity  in  befriend- 
ing Paul  and  Mark  is  a  permanent  contribution.  That 
is  his  crown  of  glory,  that  and  the  Church  at  Antioch 
which  was  shaped  by  him  and  saved  from  the  Judaisers 
for  Paul's  master  hand.  He  began  the  missionary 
campaign  that  Paul  carried  to  victory  and  that  is  still 
sweeping  on  over  the  earth.  Paul  clearly  rejoiced  in 
the  later  work  of  Barnabas,  for  he  spoke  kindly  of 
him  in  I  Corinthians  9:6.  Luther  and  Calvin  held 
that  Paul  refers  to  Barnabas  in  2  Corinthians  8:18  f., 
"the  brother  whose  praise  in  the  gospel  is  spread 
through  all  the  churches."  This  is  pure  conjecture, 
but  it  is  plain  that,  like  Paul,  he  supported  himself 
while  preaching,  and  had  the  same  spirit  of  indepen- 
dent manhood.  Christianity  can  never  forget  the  work 
of  Barnabas  even  though  he  does  not  reveal  the  genius 
of  Paul  and  John.  He  was  a  man  for  a  critical  period 
of  early  Christianity  and  helped  to  tide  over  the  tran- 
sition from  the  Jewish  to  the  Gentile  phase  of  Christian 
activity^ 


CHAPTER  III 

AQUILA  AND  PRISCILLA  PARTNERS  IN 
SERVICE 

"Loyalty"  is  a  great  word;  according  to  Prof. 
Josiah  Royce  it  is  the  greatest  of  all  words.  The 
World  War  made  it  shine  with  fresh  splendour.  Dis- 
loyalty is  not  only  a  vice,  but  a  crime.  Dr.  John  A. 
Hutton,  of  Glasgow,  argues  that  "Loyalty"  is  "the  ap- 
proach to  faith."  It  is  the  dominant  trait  in  John  the 
Baptist's  relation  to  Jesus  (see  my  "John  the  Loyal"). 
It  is  the  outstanding  characteristic  of  Aquila  and 
Priscilla  in  their  relation  to  Paul.  We  are  not  told 
much  about  them,  but  what  is  given  by  Luke  (Acts 
18:2,  18,  26)  and  Paul  (i  Cor.  16:19;  Rom.  16: 
3;  2  Tim.  4:19)  sets  this  couple  quite  apart.  "Aquila 
and  Priscilla  were,  in  St.  Paul's  eyes,  people  of  impor- 
tance in  the  early  Church"  (J.  E.  Roberts,  in  Hast- 
ings's  "Dictionary  of  the  Apostolic  Church").  Paul 
speaks  of  them  lovingly  as  "my  coworkers"  (  TOVS 
ffwepyovs  IMV>  Rom.  16:3)  in  language  that  "shows 
that  Prisca  and  Aquila  occupied  a  different  position 
from  that  of  Paul's  other  coworkers"  Weizsacker, 
"The  Apostolic  Age,"  vol.  i.,  p.  394).  He  adds: 
"The  Apostle  distinctively  set  them  side  by  side  with 
himself.  They  had,  indeed,  from  the  beginning  la- 
boured along  with  him  in  a  pre-eminent  manner,  and 
after  they  had  already  attested  their  worth  indepen- 

52 


AQUILA  AND  PRISCILLA  53 

dently."  No  group  of  Paul's  friends  would  be  com- 
plete that  did  not  include  those  two  interesting  per- 
sons whose  lives  evidently  played  a  prominent  part 
in  the  history  of  early  Christianity. 

i.  PRISCILLA'S  PREEMINENCE 

The  manuscripts  vary  a  good  deal  between  the  form 
Prisca  and  the  diminutive  Priscilla,  both  Latin.  For 
the  three  passages  in  Acts  the  best  manuscripts  give 
Priscilla  (the  language  of  conversation),  while  the 
three  in  Paul's  Epistle  have  Prisca,  "the  more  cour- 
teous and  correct  form  of  her  name"  (Furneaux, 
"Acts,"  p.  293).  Both  Aquila  and  Prisca  are  Roman 
names,  though  Luke  expressly  says  that  Aquila  is  a 
Jew  of  Pontus  (Acts  18:2).  There  is  no  reason  to 
think  that  Luke  is  mistaken  on  this  point,  because  the 
name  Pontius  Aquila  occurs  in  connection  with  the 
Pontian  family  of  Rome  (Cicero  ad  Fam.,  x.  33). 
There  was  a  Jew  of  Pontus  named  Aquila  in  the  sec- 
ond century  A.D.  who  translated  the  Old  Testament 
into  Greek.  It  was  common  enough  for  Jews  to  have 
Roman  names  like  Paul  and  Mark.  Aquila  could  also 
have  been  a  freedman,  "as  the  greater  part  of  the  Jews 
in  Rome  were  freedmen"  (Knowling,  "Acts,"  p.  383; 
cf.  Schuerer,  "History  of  the  Jewish  People,"  div.  ii., 
vol.  ii.,  p.  234).  So  Ramsay  holds:  "Aquila  was 
probably  a  freedman.  The  name  does  indeed  occur  as 
cognomen  in  some  Roman  families;  but  it  was  also 
a  slave  name,  for  a  freedman  of  Maecenas  was  called 
(C.  Cilnius)  Aquila"  ("St.  Paul  the  Traveller,"  p. 
269). 

But  it  is  not  at  all  certain  that  Prisca  (Priscilla)  was 


54  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

a  Jewess.  She  may  have  been.  Both  of  them  could 
have  been  freedmen.  One  of  the  oldest  catacombs  of 
Rome  is  the  Ccemeterium  Priscilla  outside  the  Porta 
Solaria.  De  Rossi  has  shown  that  this  cemetery 
"originates  in  the  burying  place  of  Acilius  Glabrio  and 
other  members  of  the  Acilian  Jews"  (Sanday  and 
Headlam,  "Romans,"  p.  419).  "Priscilla"  was  a  name 
that  belonged  to  the  Acilian  Jews,  as  an  inscription 
shows.  So  then  both  Aquila  and  Priscilla  could  have 
been  freedmen  of  a  member  of  the  Acilian  Jews. 
There  is  still  another  view.  Plumptre  ("Biblical 
Studies,"  p.  417)  noticed  that  in  four  of  the  six  places 
where  their  names  appear  the  wife  occurs  first  (Acts 
18:18,  26;  Rom.  16:  3;  2  Tim.  4:19).  The  usual 
theory  is  that  this  is  due  to  the  greater  zeal,  devotion, 
or  ability  of  Priscilla.  This  may  be  true,  probably 
was  the  case,  but  the  New  Testament  says  nothing 
about  it.  Hort  ("Romans  and  Ephesians,"  pp.  12  f.) 
argues  in  favor  of  Plumptre's  suggestion  "that  she  was 
a  Roman  lady,  of  higher  station  than  her  husband,  and 
that  her  position  in  Rome  enabled  her  to  render  spe- 
cial services  to  the  Church."  Ramsay  accepts  this 
view  also:  "Probably  Prisca  was  of  higher  rank  than 
her  husband,  for  her  name  is  that  of  a  good  old  Roman 
family"  ("St.  Paul  the  Traveller,"  p.  268).  This 
view  commends  itself  to  me  as  the  more  probable  in 
spite  of  the  objections  of  Sanday  and  Headlam  ("Ro- 
mans," p.  420)  that  it  is  hardly  likely  that  a  noble 
Roman  lady  would  travel  around  with  a  Jewish  hus- 
band engaged  in  mercantile  or  artisan  work.  That  all 
depends.  If  she  had  accepted  Judaism,  like  many  edu- 
cated Roman  women  (cf.  Josephus,  "Antiquities," 


AQUILA  AND  PRISCILLA  55 

xviii.  3,  5),  she  would  do  so,  especially  when  both  had 
become  Christians.  When  in  exile,  besides,  she  would 
be  cut  off  from  her  income  in  Rome.  If  she  was  a 
Roman  patrician,  she  probably  possessed  considerable 
means  and  was  able  to  be  of  real  service  to  Paul  when 
he  was  in  Rome  during  his  imprisonment,  if  she  was 
really  there  at  that  time.  We  know  from  the  inscrip- 
tions that  Christianity  did  penetrate  into  other  leading 
Roman  families  (Sanday  and  Headlam,  "Romans," 
p.  420). 

But  even  so  it  may  still  be  true  that  "Priscilla  was 
a  more  active  worker  in  the  Christian  Church  than 
her  husband.  In  favour  of  this  view  is  the  statement 
of  Chrysostom  (i.  306  D,  177  A,  iii.  176,  B,  C)  that 
it  was  Priscilla's  careful  expositions  of  'the  way  of 
God'  (Acts  18:26)  that  proved  so  helpful  to 
Apollos"  (Tasker,  in  Hastings's  "One-Volume  Dic- 
tionary of  the  Bible'').  So  Harnack  ("Expansion  of 
Christianity,"  vol.  i,  p.  79)  speaks  of  "Prisca  the 
missionary,  with  her  husband  Aquila."  At  any  rate 
the  unusual  order  of  the  wife  before  the  husband  must 
be  accepted  as  original,  though  in  Acts  18:26  the 
Western  text  has  "Aquila  and  Priscilla."  Harnack 
has  shown  that  the  Western  or  B  text  of  "Blass"  is 
"modified  by  an  interpolator  who  objected  to  the  too 
great  prominence  given  to  a  woman,  and  has  made 
the  position  of  Priscilla  less  prominent"  (Headlam,  in 
Hastings's  "Dictionary  of  the  Bible").  Ramsay 
("Church  in  the  Roman  Empire,"  p.  101)  notes  that 
the  Western  text  likewise  omits  Damaris  in  Acts  17: 
34.  Ramsay  thinks  that  this  "order  was,  therefore,  a 
conversational  custom,  familiar  in  the  company  among 


56  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

whom  they  moved;  though  it  must  have  seemed  odd 
to  strangers  in  later  generations"  ("St.  Paul  the  Trav- 
eller," p.  268).  But  Priscilla  had  a  worthy  and  noble 
husband  if  she  did  excel  him  in  some  qualities.  "They 
are  always  mentioned  together,  both  in  the  Acts  and 
in  the  Epistles,  and  they  furnish  the  most  beautiful 
example  known  to  us  in  the  apostolic  age  of  the  power 
for  good  that  could  be  exerted  by  a  husband  and  wife 
working  in  unison  for  the  advancement  of  the  gos- 
pel" (McGiffert,  "The  Apostolic  Age,"  p.  428).  She 
was  the  predominant  personality,  as  is  often  the  case, 
and  so  is  to  be  classed  with  Lydia  and  the  other  women 
who  laboured  with  Paul  in  the  gospel.  She  shared 
her  husband's  exile  (Rackham,  "Acts,"  p.  324)  and 
thereby  won  her  greatest  sphere  of  usefulness  for 
Christ. 

Harnack  ("Mission  and  Expansion  of  Christianity," 
i.,  page  79)  has  argued  that  Aquila  and  Priscilla  wrote 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  or,  rather,  that  she  wrote 
it  with  the  aid  of  her  husband.  There  is  a  curious 
interchange  of  "we"  and  "I"  in  the  Epistle,  but  Paul 
shows  the  same  literary  habit.  Harnack  thinks  that 
Priscilla's  authorship  explains  the  anonymity  of  the 
Epistle,  since  in  the  second  century  there  was  strong 
objection  to  the  prominent  position  of  women  in  the 
apostolic  age.  Dr.  J.  Rendel  Harris  accepts  it  and 
Marcus  Dods  says :  "All  that  we  know  of  Aquila  seems 
to  fit  the  conditions  as  well  as  any"  (Expositor's  Greek 
Testament,  "Hebrews,"  p.  234).  But,  if  Priscilla  was 
a  Roman,  it  hardly  seems  likely  that  she  could  have 
produced  a  book  so  Jewish  and  Alexandrian  in  style, 
more  after  the  order  of  Apollos.  Besides,  the  mas- 


AQUILA  AND  PRISCILLA  57 


culine  singular  participle  (  bumovntvov  )  in  Hebrews  1  1  : 
32  would  not  suit  Priscilla.  But  she  was  gifted  enough 
for  this  or  any  other  service. 

II.    BOTH    VICTIMS    OF    ROMAN    HATRED    OF    THE   JEWS 

Aquila  is  in  Corinth,  "lately  come  from  Italy  with 
his  wife  Priscilla,  because  Claudius  had  commanded 
all  the  Jews  to  depart  from  Rome"  (Acts  18:2). 
Suetonius  ("Claudius,"  25)  expressly  says  that  "the 
Jews  were  expelled  by  Claudius  for  incessant  riots 
under  a  ringleader  Chrestus  (Christus)."  The  Ro- 
mans could  not  distinguish  between  the  pronunciation 
of  the  koine  Greek  e  and  i.  There  is  like  confusion 
in  the  manuscripts  for  "Christians"  in  Acts  1  1  126. 
Christus  may  have  been  the  name  of  a  Jew  in  Rome 
who  caused  the  trouble,  but  it  is  likely  that  it  is  just 
the  Roman  failure  to  preserve  the  real  name  Christ. 
"Chrestus"  in  Greek  is  an  adjective  that  means  use- 
ful or  worthy.  If  the  reference  in  Suetonius  is  to 
Christ,  then  Christianity  enters  into  the  disturbance  in 
some  way.  Perhaps  the  Jews  and  the  few  Christians 
there,  converts  at  the  great  Pentecost,  had  some  dis- 
agreement and  Claudius  ordered  them  all  off  as  Jewish 
disturbers  of  the  peace.  The  Jews  had  been  brought 
to  Rome  by  Pompey  in  B.C.  61  and  had  been  a  con- 
stant cause  of  turbulence.  Tiberius  had  actually  sent 
away  four  thousand  Jews  from  Rome  to  Sardinia 
with  the  hope  that  the  malaria  might  kill  them.  How- 
ever, Dio  Cassius  (Ix.  6)  explains  that  Claudius  did 
not  actually  drive  the  Jews  out  of  Rome  because  they 
were  too  many,  over  twenty  thousand,  but  he  "for- 
bade them  to  hold  the  meetings  enjoined  by  their 


58  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

laws."  Perhaps  Claudius  tried  to  execute  his  decree 
and  did  do  so  to  some  extent  and  for  a  short  time. 
Some  of  the  Jews  did  flee,  Aquila  and  Priscilla  among 
them,  though  the  ban  was  later  lifted  so  that  they 
could  return  (cf.  Acts  28:17).  So  Paul  found 
Jews  in  Rome.  The  exact  date  of  the  decree  of 
Claudius  is  not  known.  It  is  given  all  the  way  from 
A.D.  49  to  52.  Ramsay  holds  that  A.D.  50  is  the 
correct  date  ("St.  Paul  the  Traveller,"  p.  254).  On 
this  showing  this  interesting  couple  did  not  arrive  in 
Corinth  more  than  six  months  before  Paul  came  from 
Athens.  It  is  curious  how  bitter  race  prejudice  was 
between  Jew  and  Gentile.  In  A.D.  41  a  man  named 
Heraclides  was  in  many  difficulties.  Serapion  writes 
to  him:  "Beware  of  the  Jews"  (KO.I\<TV  BXeirc  aarbv 
&TTO  T&V  'lovSaiav,  B.  G.  H.  1079,  1-  24)-  This  scrap  of 
papyrus  throws  light  on  the  decree  of  Claudius  just 
a  few  years  later.  Alas,  hatred  of  the  Jews  has  not 
yet  disappeared  from  the  earth. 

III.      EARLY  MEMBERS  OF  THE  CHURCH   IN  ROME 

On  this  point  one  cannot  be  dogmatic,  but  it  is  dif- 
ficult to  keep  from  having  an  opinion,  though  the 
material  is  not  sufficient  for  positive  knowledge. 
What  is  clear  is  that  Aquila  and  Priscilla  could  tell 
Paul  "of  the  events  that  had  occurred  in  Rome  at  the 
action  of  Chrestus"  (Ramsay,  "St.  Paul  the  Trav- 
eller," p.  255).  We  know  that  Paul  later  (Acts  19: 
2)  announced  a  purpose  to  see  Rome,  and  this  plan 
may  be  due  to  Aquila  and  Priscilla.  The  silence  of 
Luke  in  Acts  18,  is  argued  both  ways.  It  is  strange, 
Knowling  holds,  that  no  mention  is  made  of  the  con- 


AQUILA  AND  PRISCILLA  59 

version  of  Aquila  and  Priscilla  if  they  were  Christians 
when  Paul  met  them.  On  the  other  hand,  Rackham 
thinks  that  the  ready  inference  is  to  be  drawn  that 
they  were  already  Christians,  since  otherwise  Luke 
would  have  mentioned  their  conversion  and  baptism 
as  in  the  case  of  Lydia.  The  truth  is  that  we  do  not 
know.  Milligan  (Hastings's  "Dictionary  of  the 
Bible,"  "Aquila")  comes  near  the  probable  truth  when 
he  says:  "The  ready  welcome  which  Aquila  accorded 
to  one  whom  the  bulk  of  his  fellow-countrymen  viewed 
with  such  disfavour  as  Paul,  inclines  us  to  the  belief 
that  when  he  came  to  Corinth  he  had  at  least  accepted 
the  first  principles  of  Christian  faith,  though  his  prog- 
ress and  growth  in  it  he  doubtless  owed  to  the  apostle. 
If  so,  he  and  his  wife  may  be  ranked  amongst  the 
earliest  members  of  the  Christian  Church  at  Rome ; 
and  it  would  be  from  them  that  Paul  would  learn  those 
particulars  regarding  the  state  of  that  Church  to  which 
he  afterwards  refers  in  his  Epistle  (see  Rom.  1 :8,  16: 
17-19)."  Knowling  admits  the  possibility  that  Jews 
from  Rome  were  at  the  great  Pentecost  who  could 
have  carried  the  knowledge  of  Christ  to  the  Eternal 
City,  and  that  but  for  some  leanings  to  the  new  faith 
Aquila  and  Priscilla  would  hardly  have  admitted  Paul 
to  their  lodgings.  Claudius  thus  played  a  great  part 
in  the  life  of  Aquila  and  Priscilla  in  driving  them  to 
Corinth  into  the  fellowship  of  Paul,  who  became  the 
great  friend  of  their  whole  lives. 

IV.    COMRADESHIP  WITH  PAUL  IN  CORINTH 

Luke  says  of  Paul  that  he  came  to  Aquila  and  Pris- 
cilla and  that,  "because  he  was  of  the  same  trade  with 


60  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

them,  he  abode  with  them,  and  they  wrought;  for  by 
their  trade  they  were  tentmakers"  (Acts  18:3). 
The  word  employed  here  by  Luke  for  "of  the  same 
trade"  (b^rt-xyov}  is  a  classical  word,  though  not  in 
the  Septuagint.  Hobart  ("Medical  Language  of  St. 
Luke,"  p.  239)  argues  that  this  is  a  technical  word 
for  fellow  physicians  (so  used  by  Dioscorides).  At 
any  rate  there  were  trade  guilds  in  plenty  during  the 
first  century  A.D.  Edersheim  says:  "In  Alexandria 
the  different  trades  sat  in  the  synagogue  arranged  into 
guilds;  and  St.  Paul  could  have  no  difficulty  in  meet- 
ing in  the  bazaar  of  his  trade  with  the  like-minded 
Aquila  and  Priscilla  (Acts  18:2,  3),  with  whom  to 
find  a  lodging"  ("Sketches  of  Jewish  Social  Life,"  p. 
89).  It  was  the  Jewish  custom  to  teach  all  boys  a 
manual  trade,  one  that  the  great  war  has  shown  to  be 
exceedingly  wise  for  both  boys  and  girls.  Jesus  was 
by  trade  a  carpenter  and  Paul  a  tentmaker.  Tent- 
making  was  a  flourishing  local  industry  in  Tarsus. 
The  rough  goats'  hair,  called  cilicium  from  Cilicia,  was 
employed  in  making  tents  for  which  there  was  a  great 
demand  all  over  the  East,  as  is  still  the  case.  This 
boy  learned  to  make  tents,  to  study  philosophy  at  the 
University  of  Tarsus,  and  theology  at  the  feet  of 
Gamaliel  in  Jerusalem.  Pontus,  like  Cilicia,  was  "a 
district  with  abundant  pasturage  for  goats  and  num- 
bered tent-making  amongst  its  industries"  (Furneaux, 
"Acts,"  p.  292).  So  these  two  Jewish  Christians  were 
both  tentmakers  (o-KTjyoTrotoi) .  It  was  hard  to  cut  the 
rough  cloth  straight,  but  Paul  learned  it  as  he  did  the 
straight  interpretation  of  God's  Word  (2  Tim.  2: 
15).  Aquila  and  Priscilla  were  now  working  at  this 


AQUILA  AND  PRISCILLA  61 

trade  because  they  had  been  driven  out  of  Rome  and 
were  now  away  from  their  income.  Paul  had  already 
worked  at  his  trade  to  support  himself  at  Thessalonica 
(i  Thess.  2:9;  2  Thess.  3:8).  Probably  Aquila  and 
Priscilla  had  opened  a  shop  and  they  took  Paul  in  as 
a  partner  in  the  business.  At  any  rate  Paul  lived  in 
their  house  (ifieivev  Trap'  avrols)  and  they  worked 
steadily  at  their  business  (ripya^ovro,  imperfect  tense). 
Dr.  Samuel  Cox  has  a  chapter  on  "St.  Paul  a  Work- 
ingman  and  in  Want"  in  his  "Expositor's  Note-Book," 
pp.  419-438.  But  there  was  more  than  comradeship 
in 'trade  between  these  choice  spirits.  He  found  also 
a  Christian  home  which  refreshed  his  soul  after  the 
cold  indifference  of  Athens,  and  he  "established  a  link 
with  the  Church  in  Rome"  (Rackham,  p.  329).  Paul 
worked  for  his  living  with  his  own  hands  and  preached 
as  occasion  came  in  the  synagogue  on  the  Sabbath  and 
"tried  to  persuade  (e7rei0ei>)  both  Jews  and  Greeks" 
(Acts.  18:4).  This  was  his  habit  of  independence 
(i  Cor.  9:12,  15;  2  Cor.  13:13).  "No  man  should 
be  able  to  say  that  he  cared  more  for  the  fleece  than 
for  the  flock"  (Furneaux,  p.  295).  It  was  a  blessed 
copartnership,  and  Aquila  and  Priscilla  learned  from 
Paul  the  art  of  winning  souls  to  Christ  and  of  train- 
ing them  for  his  service.  They  were  already  expert 
tentmakers.  They  now  became  expert  evangelists. 
Aquila  and  Priscilla  step  into  the  background  when 
Timothy  and  Silas  come  from  Thessalonica  to  Corinth 
(Acts  18:5).  They  brought  so  much  help  that  Paul 
was  able  to  preach  more  and  make  fewer  tents  avvtixero 
T$  \6yif} ,  with  the  result  that  the  Jews  were  soon 
aroused  to  anger  by  Paul's  tremendous  success.  After 


62  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

some  two  years  in  Corinth,  Aquila  and  Priscilla  accom- 
pany Paul  to  Ephesus  (Acts  18:21).  Either  Paul 
or  Aquila  had  a  vow  which  was  absolved  at  Cenchrese 
and  they  went  on.  In  the  light  of  Acts  18:19  it 
seems  as  if  Aquila  and  Priscilla  sought  to  establish 
themselves  in  business  in  Ephesus  and  wished  Paul  to 
go  in  with  them  as  in  Corinth:  "And  he  left  them 
there;  but  he  himself  entered  into  the  synagogue  and 
reasoned  with  the  Jews."  The  point  is  not  clear,  but 
Paul  meant  to  go  on  to  Csesarea  and  to  Jerusalem 
(apparently)  and  then  to  Antioch  (18:22).  He 
planned,  however,  to  come  back  to  Ephesus  and  rejoin 
Aquila  and  Priscilla  if  it  was  God's  will  (18:21). 
So  Aquila  and  Priscilla  were  left  by  Paul  in  a  city 
with  few,  if  any,  Christians  besides  themselves.  Thus 
they  began  in  Corinth  also.  They  would  make  tents 
as  at  Corinth  and  as  Paul  later  did  on  his  return  to 
Ephesus :  "Ye  yourselves  know  that  these  hands  min- 
istered unto  my  necessities,  and  to  them  that  were 
with  me"  (Acts  20:34).  So  Paul  spoke  to  the  elders 
from  Ephesus  at  Miletus  of  his  work  in  Ephesus  with 
Aquila  and  Priscilla.  But  we  may  be  sure  that  Aquila 
and  Priscilla  would  be  on  the  lookout  for  every  oppor- 
tunity to  serve  the  cause  of  Christ. 

V.    SKILL  IN  TRAINING  A  YOUNG  PREACHER 

We  do  not  know  how  long  Paul  was  absent  from 
Ephesus.  Luke  says  that  he  spent  "some  time"  in 
Antioch  (Acts  18:23)  before  he  started  on  the  third 
missionary  journey.  Paul  was  certainly  away  some 
months,  since  he  also  "went  through  the  region  of 
Galatia  and  Phrygia,  stablishing  all  the  disciples" 


AQUILA  AND  PRISCILLA  6S 

(18:23).  He  probably  arrived  at  Antioch  in  the 
spring  and  at  Ephesus  in  the  autumn  of  A.D.  53  or 
54.  Ramsay  ("St.  Paul  the  Traveller,"  p.  266)  thinks 
October  the  probable  month.  It  is  clear  that  during 
Paul's  absence  Aquila  and  Priscilla  would  carry  on 
their  trade  and  do  what  they  could  to  win  converts  to 
Christ.  There  was  pretty  clearly  no  church  as  yet 
in  Ephesus.  After  Paul  came  back  he  preached  for 
three  months  in  the  synagogue  (Acts  igiSf.)  till 
compelled  to  leave  for  the  school  of  Tyrannus.  Luke 
gives  us  only  one  item  in  the  experience  of  Aquila  and 
Priscilla  as  they  did  pioneer  work  during  Paul's  ab- 
sence. It  is  the  visit  of  Apollos  to  Ephesus  and  how 
Aquila  and  Priscilla  took  him  in  hand.  Ramsay  thinks 
that  Luke  records  this  incident  "not  so  much  for  its 
own  intrinsic  importance  as  for  the  sake  of  rendering 
Paul's  first  letter  to  the  Corinthians  clear  and  intelli- 
gible. A  contrast  is  drawn  there  between  the  more 
elaborate  and  eloquent  style  of  Apollos  and  the  simple 
gospel  of  Paul;  and  it  is  implied  that  some  of  the  Co- 
rinthian brethren  preferred  the  style  and  gospel  of 
Apollos.  The  particulars  stated  here  about  Apollos 
have  clearly  been  selected  to  throw  light  on  the  cir- 
cumstances alluded  to,  but  not  explained  in  the  letter 
("St.  Paul  the  Traveller,"  p.  267).  Perhaps  so.  At 
any  rate  the  passage  serves  that  purpose  for  us  whether 
or  no  it  was  the  specific  design  of  Luke.  I  think  that 
the  incident  has  great  value  and  interest  in  itself  both 
in  the  career  of  a  man  of  unusual  gifts  like  Apollos 
and  in  the  attitude  of  Aquila  and  Priscilla  toward  this 
remarkable  young  minister  who  has  suddenly  come 
across  their  path.  Ephesus  was  one  of  the  great  cities 


64  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

of  the  world  and  men  came  thither  from  everywhere 
with  all  sorts  of  beliefs  (Oriental  cults,  Hellenism, 
Judaism).  The  great  Temple  of  Diana  was  the  pride 
and  glory  of  Ephesus.  Aquila  and  Priscilla  laid  the 
foundations  for  Christianity  in  Ephesus.  They  were 
naturally  concerned  about  everything  that  affected  the 
cause.  They  still  worshipped  in  the  synagogue  with 
the  Jews  and  doubtless  spoke  to  the  Jews  and  to  the 
"God- fearers"  among  the  Gentiles  who  came.  Apollos 
of  Alexandria  also  spoke  in  the  synagogue  (Acts  18: 
26).  He  did  it  with  such  boldness,  novelty,  and  power 
that  a  real  sensation  was  made.  He  preached  Jesus, 
and  yet  not  precisely  as  Aquila  and  Priscilla  Had 
learned  him  from  Paul.  They  saw  at  once  that  such 
a  man  would  do  great  good  or  great  harm.  He  could 
not  be  ignored.  He  must  be  an  ally  or  an  opponent. 
It  is  a  great  gift  to  be  able  to  judge  men.  It  was  clear 
that  Apollos  with  all  his  Alexandrian  philosophy  and 
eloquence  was  right  on  the  main  things  in  Christianity 
as  far  as  he  went.  He  still  tarried  at  the  place  held  by 
John  the  Baptist.  He  needed  instruction  rather  than 
denunciation.  Christian  leaders  have  not  always 
known  how  to  treat  a  new  voice  that  begins  to  inter- 
pret Christ  in  a  new  day.  Some  go  wild  over  the 
novelty  of  manner  or  the  very  defects  of  the  man  and 
exaggerate  these  into  error  or  eddies  of  truth.  Others 
fiercely  rail  at  the  newcomer  for  his  theological  short- 
comings and  vagaries  and  try  to  drive  the  strange  voice 
away.  Nowhere  is  more  wisdom  required  than  in  the 
training  of  preachers  both  young  and  old.  Aquila  and 
Priscilla  saved  Apollos  for  the  cause  of  Christ  by 
wisely  leading  him  into  fuller  knowledge  of  Christ.  It 


AQUILA  AND  PRISCILLA  65 

is  not  always  easy  to  teach  a  gifted  man  and  to  correct 
a  sensitive  man's  defects.  Priscilla  and  Aquila  did  it 
privately  and  Priscilla  probably  did  the  most  of  it 
with  a  woman's  deftness  and  adroitness.  It  was  a 
noble  service  to  render  and  points  the  way  for  us  all 
to-day  when  scholarship  and  Christianity  are  not  al- 
ways harmonious.  There  is  a  middle  ground  between 
heresy  and  obscurantism.  The  cure  for  error  is  more 
truth.  Apollos  erred  by  defect,  but  he  was  eager  to 
know  more.  Roberts  (Hastings's  "Dictionary  of  the 
Apostolic  Church'')  raises  the  question  whether  the 
elementary  and  chaotic  state  of  things  in  Ephesus  at 
this  stage  did  not  make  Aquila  and  Priscilla  more  than 
willing  to  urge  Apollos  to  pass  on  to  Corinth,  where 
his  philosophical  turn  would  have  a  riper  audience. 
Something  is  to  be  said  for  this  view,  though  one 
doubts  if  they  were  uneasy  that  the  eloquent  Alexan- 
drian might  overshadow  them  in  Ephesus.  Ramsay 
is  puzzled  as  to  how  the  twelve  mistaken  disciples  of 
the  Baptist  had  escaped  the  knowledge  of  Apollos  and 
Aquila  and  Priscilla  before  Paul  came  ("St.  Paul  the 
Traveller,"  p.  270).  But  Ephesus  was  a  large  city 
and  had  many  elements  in  its  population. 

VI.      MAKING  THEIR  HOME  A  CENTRE  OF  CHURCH  LIFE 

When  Paul  writes  to  Corinth  he  says :  "Aquila  and 
Priscilla  salute  you  much  in  the  Lord,  with  the  church 
that  is  in  their  house"  (i  Cor.  16:19).  Thus  we 
know  that  a  church  was  established  in  Ephesus  before 
Paul  writes  this  letter  and  that  one  of  the  meeting 
places  was  the  home  of  Aquila  and  Priscilla.  It  was 
the  habit  of  this  noble  couple.  They  gathered  Chris- 


66  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

tians  to  their  home.  When  Paul  writes  to  Rome  he 
sends  salutations  to  the  church  in  the  home  of  Aquila 
and  Priscilla  (16:5).  The  disciples  had  to  worship 
where  they  could,  in  synagogue,  school,  home.  This 
couple  used  their  means  to  make  a  home  for  the  fol- 
lowers of  Christ.  It  was  a  primitive  arrangement, 
but  it  had  some  advantages.  It  carried  worship  into 
the  home,  and  that  is  a  great  blessing.  Family  wor- 
ship is  now  a  rare  spectacle.  What  would  Christianity 
have  done  in  the  first  century  but  for  access  to  homes 
like  those  of  Mary  in  Jerusalem,  Cornelius  in  Caesarea, 
Lydia  in  Philippi,  Justus  in  Corinth,  Aquila  and  Pris- 
cilla in  Ephesus  and  Rome?  There  were  probably 
other  such  meeting  places  for  the  Christians  in 
Ephesus  and  Rome  (cf.  Rom.  i6:i4f.).  But  this 
item  shows  that  they  did  their  work  in  Ephesus  well. 
It  requires  more  courage  to  bring  Christ  into  the  home 
than  to  attend  church.  The  presence  of  Christ  in  the 
home  comes  closer  to  our  bosoms  and  touches  our  busi- 
ness life.  If  our  homes  were  centres  of  active  Chris- 
tian influence,  a  revolution  would  come  in  the  world. 

VII.   RISKING  THEIR  LIVES  FOR  PAUL 

In  Romans  16:4  Paul  speaks  of  Priscilla  and 
Aquila  "who  for  my  life  laid  down  their  necks."  The 
language  is  bold  and  picturesque.  Literally  it  means 
that  they  laid  back  their  necks  (r6v  lavruv  rpax^ov 
tiircOrjicav)  for  the  ax  of  the  executioner.  It  is  prob- 
ably not  to  be  taken  literally  any  more  than  Paul's 
language  about  fighting  with  wild  beasts  at  Ephesus 
(i  Cor.  15 132).  These  wild  beasts  were  men  like  the 
mob  that  gathered  in  the  amphitheatre  at  Ephesus  and 


AQUILA  AND  PRISCILLA  67 

clamoured  for  Paul's  blood.  They  were  like  the  beasts 
in  the  gladiatorial  arena.  Paul  was  not  allowed  by 
his  friends  to  go  to  this  gathering  of  the  mob,  but  it 
is  quite  possible  that  Aquila  and  Priscilla  were  caught 
in  the  maelstrom  of  their  rage  when  they  seized  Gaius 
and  Aristarchus,  "Paul's  companions  in  travel"  (Acts 
19:29).  Paul  was  so  indignant  at  this  wanton  act 
that  he  wanted  to  go  and  face  the  mob.  It  took  the 
disciples  and  the  Asiarchs  to  hold  him  back  (19: 
3of.).  It  is  possible  that  at  this  juncture,  as  Paul  was 
living  with  Aquila  and  Priscilla,  they  volunteered  to 
go  and  face  these  wild  beasts  and  try  to  dissuade  them 
from  their  murderous  intents  toward  Paul,  just  as 
courageous  spirits  have  stood  before  a  mob  engaged 
in  the  crime  of  lynching  and  endeavoured  to  restore 
them  to  reason.  At  any  rate  Aquila  and  Priscilla  took 
their  lives  in  their  hands  and  risked  all  "for  my  life" 
(vTrlprrjs  fam*  /w>u).  They  were  ready  to  die  to  save 
Paul's  life.  This  great  sacrificial  act  Paul  could  never 
forget.  It  set  Aquila  and  Priscilla  apart  among  Paul's 
friends.  They  were  henceforth  knit  together  by  this 
blood  bond.  The  fact  that  they  escaped  with  their 
lives  in  no  wise  decreased  Paul's  sense  of  obligation  to 
them  for  their  heroic  deed.  It  was  loyalty  to  the  limit 
and  Paul  cherished  the  memory  of  their  courage. 

VIII.      GOOD  TRAVELLING  CHRISTIANS 

The  last  mention  of  Prisca  and  Aquila  by  Paul  is  in 
2  Timothy  4:9.  Timothy  is  in  Ephesus  and  is  re- 
quested by  Paul  to  salute  this  devoted  couple.  It  has 
been  objected  that  for  this  and  other  reasons  Romans 
1 6  does  not  belong  to  that  Epistle,  but  should  be 


68  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

added  to  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  or  to  a  lost 
Epistle.  It  is  said  that  the  life  of  Aquila  and  Priscilla 
is  pictured  as  too  nomadic — now  in  Rome,  now  in 
Corinth,  now  in  Ephesus,  now  in  Rome,  now  in 
Ephesus.  But  Lightfoot  ("Biblical  Essays,"  p.  299) 
replies  that  a  nomadic  life  was  precisely  the  character- 
istic of  the  Jews  of  that  day.  Paul's  own  life  is  a 
case  in  point.  We  know  why  Aquila  and  Priscilla  left 
Rome  for  Corinth  and  Corinth  for  Ephesus.  It  is  not 
hard  to  see  why  they  would  be  glad  to  go  back  to  Rome 
when  the  way  was  clear.  They  may  have  returned  to 
Ephesus  on  a  mission  for  Paul.  Their  migratory 
habits  furnish  presumptive  evidence  for  the  integrity 
of  Romans  (Tasker,  Hastings's  "One-Volume  Dic- 
tionary of  the  Bible").  That  Paul  had  so  many  ac- 
quaintances and  friends  in  Rome  before  he  went  there 
himself  is  not  strange.  Everybody  went  to  Rome 
sometime  or  other  who  could  manage  it.  The  travel- 
ling habits  of  Jews  and  others  explains  the  rest.  Paul 
had  met  these  people  here  and  there.  They  are  now 
in  Rome.  As  to  Ephesians  we  know  that  it  is  a  circu- 
lar letter  to  several  churches  in  Asia  and  not  designed 
for  Ephesus  alone.  Priscilla  and  Aquila  were  Paul's 
"fellow  workers  in  Christ  Jesus"  whether  in  Corinth, 
Ephesus,  or  Rome.  Paul  is  grateful  to  them,  but  many 
others  also  feel  the  same  way,  "all  the  churches  of  the 
Gentiles"  in  fact  (Rom.  16:4).  Here  we  catch  a 
glimpse  of  the  missionary  zeal  of  this  couple.  They 
were  known  and  loved,  Paul  says,  through  Gentile 
Christendom.  They  were  great  travellers,  but  they 
took  Christ  with  them  wherever  they  went.  Like 
Abraham  of  old,  they  set  up  an  altar  to  the  Lord  in 


AQUILA  AND  PRISCILLA  69 

every  city.  It  is  a  discredit  to  many  that  they  are  not 
good  travelling  Christians.  Our  modern  globe-trotters 
care  much  more  for  sight-seeing  than  for  hunting  up 
disciples  of  Jesus  in  out-of-the-way  places.  In  every 
city  in  America  there  are  thousands  of  people  who 
were  active  Church  members  in  the  country  or  town 
before  they  moved  to  the  big  city.  Now  they  wander 
from  church  to  church  or  drop  out  entirely.  They 
do  not  carry  with  them  the  same  activity  for  Christ 
that  they  displayed  at  home.  Place  it  to  the  credit  of 
Aquila  and  Priscilla  that  they  made  a  business  of  their 
religion.  It  was  not  an  appendage  to  be  left  off  in 
travelling.  There  took  Christ  with  them  all  the  time. 
Harnack  thinks  that  this  was  chiefly  due  to  Priscilla, 
whom  he  considers  a  sort  of  female  apostle  in  her 
zeal.  "Plainly  the  woman  was  the  leading  figure  of 
the  two,  so  far  as  regards  Christian  activity  at  least. 
She  was  a  fellow  labourer  of  St.  Paul — i.  e.,  a  mission- 
ary— and  she  could  not  take  part  in  missionary  work 
or  in  teaching,  unless  she  had  been  inspired  and  set 
apart  by  the  Spirit.  Otherwise,  St.  Paul  would  not 
have  recognised  her.  She  may  be  claimed  as  $ 
d7r6o-To\os,  although  St.  Paul  has  not  given  her  this 
title  ("The  Mission  and  Expansion  of  Christianity," 
ii.,  p.  66).  At  any  rate,  it  is  easy  to  see  how  useful 
to  Paul  and  to  the  cause  of  Christ  Priscilla  and  Aquila 
became.  They  were  welcome  visitors  anywhere  in  the 
world  where  Jesus  was  loved.  They  could  ply  their 
trade  and  push  on  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  fine  speci- 
mens of  lay  preachers,  business  people  who  were  thor- 
oughly independent  as  to  their  own  support  and  yet 
who  made  their  lives  count  tremendously  for  the  work 


70  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

of  Christ.  They  were  self-supporting  missionaries 
who  rejoiced  in  the  privilege  of  giving  all  to  Christ. 
They  were  rich  in  their  friendships  and  in  their  serv- 
ice. They  enriched  the  lives  of  thousands  and  en- 
deared themselves  to  Paul,  who  lived  with  them  two 
years  in  Corinth  and  three  years  in  Ephesus  and  who 
had  tested  their  love  for  Christ  to  the  core.  They 
carried  their  business  sense  and  social  prestige  into 
the  service  of  Christ  and  employed  both  as  weapons 
in  the  warfare  which  they  waged  for  righteousness. 


CHAPTER  IV 
JAMES  THE  MAN  OF  POISE 

I.    JAMES   THE   BROTHER   OF   JESUS 

Paul  refers  to  "James  the  Lord's  brother"  (Gal. 
1:19).  Peter  sent  a  message  "to  James  and  to  the 
brethren"  (Acts  12:17).  Jude  describes  himself  as 
the  "brother  of  James"  (Jude  i).  The  author  of  the 
Epistle  of  James  terms  himself  "James,  a  servant  of 
God  and  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ"  (James  I  :i). 

It  is  evident  that  we  have  here  one  and  the  same 
man  and  that  he  is  not  James,  the  son  of  Zebedee  and 
the  brother  of  John,  slain  by  Herod  Agrippa  I  (Acts 
12:1,  2),  and  not  one  of  the  twelve  apostles.  There 
is  no  reasonable  doubt,  therefore,  that  in  Acts  12,  15, 
21  we  are  dealing  with  the  author  of  the  Epistle,  the 
brother  of  Jesus. 

Scholars  disagree  as  to  what  is  meant  by  the  term 
"brother."  The  natural  meaning  is  that  he  is  the 
son  of  Joseph  and  Mary,  the  eldest  of  the  younger 
brothers  and  sisters  of  Jesus  mentioned  in  the  Gospels 
(Mark  6:3;  Matt.  13:56).  The  names  of  the  four 
brothers  are  given  (James,  Joses,  Judas,  Simon). 
Since  Jesus  was  not  the  actual  son  of  Joseph,  James 
was  the  half  brother  of  Jesus. 

Some  hold  that  these  brothers  and  sisters  of  Jesus 
were  step-brothers  and  sisters,  children  of  Joseph  by 
a  former  marriage.  Others  contend  that  brother  and 


72 

sister  really  here  only  means  "cousin."  There  is  a 
full  discussion  of  the  whole  matter  in  Mayor's  "Com- 
mentary on  James"  and  a  brief  one  in  my  "Practical 
and  Social  Aspects  of  Christianity."  I  hold  that  James 
was  the  son  of  Joseph  and  Mary. 

II.    BLINDED  BY  THE  LIGHT 

It  seems  that  at  first  James  and  the  other  brothers 
of  Jesus  were  proud  of  his  work  at  Cana  for  they  were 
in  frank  fellowship  for  a  while  in  Capernaum  (John 
2:12).  There  was  apparently  no  estrangement  at  this 
time  (Patrick,  "James  the  Lord's  Brother,"  page  46). 

We  are  not  able  to  trace  the  origin  of  the  suspicion 
and  distrust  that  finally  arose  in  the  Nazareth  home. 
Mary  understood  the  destiny  of  Jesus,  but  the  brothers 
and  sisters  probably  reflected  the  popular  resentment 
in  Nazareth  on  the  occasion  of  his  visit  there  (Luke 
4:16-31).  At  any  rate  they  appear  by  and  by  to  think 
that  Jesus  is  "beside  himself"  (Matt.  I2:46f. ;  Luke 
8:i9f.)  and  wish  to  take  him  home. 

The  Pharisees  had  openly  charged  that  Jesus  was 
in  league  with  the  devil  and  even  Mary  for  the  mo- 
ment feared  that  the  excitement  had  unbalanced  him. 
Later  the  brothers  of  Jesus  offered  cynical  advice  to 
Jesus  about  his  Messianic  work  (John  7:5-10),  advice 
that  he  took  pains  to  disregard. 

It  is  plain,  therefore,  that  Jesus  was  misunderstood 
in  the  home  circle  at  Nazareth,  though  his  mother  was 
loyal  to  the  core  and  to  the  end. 

It  is  not  unusual  for  those  who  live  at  the  foot  of  a 
mountain  to  take  little  interest  in  the  glory  and  gran- 
deur of  the  peak.  Contemporaries  of  the  great  are 


JAMES  THE  MAN  OF  POISE  73i 

proverbially  unable  to  gauge  rightly  the  standing  of 
the  men  or  their  age.  We  see  but  one  section  of  the 
facts  and  are  too  close  to  the  mountain  to  see  its  true 
perspective.  The  flies  at  night  beat  their  lives  out 
against  the  electric  light,  blinded  by  the  light.  The 
Light  of  the  world  shaded  his  light  in  the  home  circle 
beyond  a  doubt. 

There  was  no  posing  and  no  professionalism,  but 
James  knew  Jesus  as  his  elder  brother,  the  carpenter, 
and  probably  was  unable  to  see  what  it  was  that  sud- 
denly lifted  him  to  the  place  of  a  rabbi,  and  a  prophet, 
and  miracle  worker  and  finally  of  the  long-expected 
Messiah.  One  need  not  be  unduly  severe  upon  James 
to  see  how  the  problem  puzzled  him. 

III.    WON    TO    THE    LIGHT 

Evidently  James  was  drawn  to  Jerusalem  by  the 
events  of  the  Passion  Week.  Luke  calmly  notes  that 
the  brothers  of  Jesus  with  their  mother  form  part  of 
the  goodly  company  that  meet  in  the  upper  room  and 
wait  for  the  promise  of  the  Father  (Acts  I  :i4). 

Evidently  a  complete  change  has  come  over  the  atti- 
tude of  James.  Paul  explains  how  it  came  to  pass  by 
the  appearance  of  the  risen  Christ  to  James  (i  Cor. 
15  17).  We  have  no  details  of  that  meeting,  probably 
in  the  city  somewhere,  though  it  may  have  been  in 
Nazareth. 

But  James  was  not  a  man  to  hold  out  against  the 
facts.  Undoubtedly  he  preferred  to  believe  in  his 
brother  as  the  Messiah  and  Lord  if  the  facts  justified 
him  in  doing  so.  He  probably  felt  keenly  the  shame  of 
the  Cross,  for  Jesus  had  died  as  a  condemned  criminal. 


74  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

It  required  a  piercing  ray  of  light  to  drive  away  the  fog 
of  doubt  and  distress  from  the  mind  of  James.  We 
may  be  sure  that  Jesus  dealt  tenderly  with  James  as 
he  did  with  Thomas.  The  position  of  James  was  dif- 
ficult. Like  Nicodemus  at  first  he  could  not  compre- 
hend the  new  ideas  of  the  Kingdom.  Now  after  the 
death  of  Jesus  it  all  seemed  like  a  wild  dream  that 
was  over. 

Perhaps  James  grieved  most  because  of  the  anguish 
and  disappointment  of  his  mother.  But  Jesus  knows 
how  to  touch  the  mainspring  of  each  heart  whether  it 
be  Nathanael,  Thomas,  James,  or  Saul.  Dale,  indeed, 
thinks  that  James  was  converted  before  Jesus  mani- 
fested himself  to  him  ("Epistle  of  James,"  page  5). 
Mayor  ("Commentary,"  page  xxxvii)  is  disposed  to 
believe  part  of  the  legend  of  Jerome  about  James  being 
at  the  last  Passover  meal.  We  do  not  need  to  fill  out 
the  story.  James  saw  Jesus.  Henceforth  he  called 
himself  a  "slave  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  He  was 
in  the  upper  room  with  the  hundred  and  twenty  and 
was  at  home  with  the  disciples. 

IV.    THE  LEADERSHIP  OF  CHARACTER 

One  may  wonder  why  James  was  not  chosen  to  suc- 
ceed Juda,s  instead  of  Matthias.  His  kinship  to  Jesus 
would  naturally  give  him  prominence,  but  James  had 
not  companied  with  the  disciples  from  the  first  (Acts 
1 122). 

And  yet  we  soon  see  James  in  the  lead  in  the  Jeru- 
salem church.  Paul  singles  him  out  as  one  that  he  saw 
on  his  visit  to  Peter  (Gal.  I  :i8,  19).  Even  Peter  on 
his  release  from  prison  sends  a  message  to  "James  and 
the  brethren"  (Acts  12:17). 


JAMES  THE  MAN  OF  POISE  75 

At  the  Jerusalem  conference  (Acts  15:1-35)  James 
presides,  makes  the  closing  address,  and  writes  the  de- 
cree of  freedom  for  the  Gentiles.  Paul  in  Galatians 
2  19  recognizes  James  as  one  of  the  pillars  of  the  church 
in  Jerusalem  on  a  par  with  Peter  and  John.  On  the 
occasion  of  Paul's  last  visit  to  Jerusalem  James  is  still 
the  leader  of  the  church  there  (Acts  21 117-26). 

There  is  no  doubt  about  the  fact  of  the  leadership 
of  James.  He  came  to  hold  the  chief  position  in  the 
Jerusalem  church  whether  a  chief  elder,  or  pastor,  or 
apostle. 

It  is  not  clear  what  title  he  had.  At  first  he  prob- 
ably won  his  way  by  force  of  character.  He  was  a 
man  of  mark  as  the  brother  of  Jesus,  but  so  were  the 
other  brothers  of  Jesus  now  in  the  church.  James 
forged  ahead  by  sterling  qualities  that  fitted  him  for 
the  part  in  Jerusalem. 

After  the  death  of  Stephen  and  the  conversion  of 
Saul,  the  twelve  apostles  were  increasingly  absent  from 
Jerusalem  in  their  work  of  evangelisation.  James  was 
regarded  as  a  thorough  Jew  and  leaned  to  the  Pales- 
tinian outlook  rather  than  to  that  of  the  Hellenistic 
Jews  like  Stephen  and  Barnabas.  His  conservatism 
won  their  confidence  when  the  peril  of  Gentile  Chris- 
tianity first  appeared.  The  party  of  the  circumcision 
looked  to  James  to  put  a  stop  to  what  Peter  had  done 
up  at  Csesarea  (Acts  11:1-18). 

V.      A  MAN  OF  PRACTICAL  WISDOM 

He  came  to  be  called  James  the  Just,  but  his  Epistle 
reveals  him  as  James  the  Wise.  The  date  of  the 
Epistle  is  in  dispute.  In  general,  one  may  say  that 


76  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

it  was  written  before  the  Judaising  controversy  arose 
(before  50  A.  D.)  or  after  it  died  down  in  the  second 
century  (M.  Jones,  "The  New  Testament  in  the  Twen- 
tieth Century,"  page  321). 

Ropes  ("International  Critical  Commentary,"  page 
51)  thinks  that  the  writer's  smooth  Greek  style  makes 
it  unlikely  that  it  was  written  by  James  the  Lord's 
brother,  though  it  probably  belongs  to  the  period  60 
to  70  A.  D.  But  the  vernacular  Koivfj  was  a  flexible 
tool  and  responded  to  the  personal  equation. 

There  is  no  allusion  to  the  points  at  issue  between 
Paul  and  the  Judaisers.  This  is  all  the  more  striking 
since  James  employs  some  of  the  very  words  in  de- 
bate between  them  (faith,  works,  justification).  But 
he  fails  to  touch  what  Paul  has  in  mind.  "Paul  is 
looking  at  the  root ;  James  is  looking  at  the  fruit.  Paul 
is  talking  about  the  beginning  of  the  Christian  life; 
James  is  talking  about  the  continuance  and  consum- 
mation. With  Paul,  the  works  he  renounces  precede 
faith  and  are  dead  works.  With  James,  the  faith  he 
denounces  is  apart  from  works  and  is  a  dead  faith" 
(Hayes,  "International  Standard  Bible  Encyclo- 
paedia"). 

James  writes  in  the  atmosphere  of  the  Sermon  on 
the  Mount  and  is  not  thinking  of  the  developed  the- 
ology of  Paul  that  was  sharpened  by  the  Judaising 
controversy.  Both  believe  in  faith  as  the  way  of  sal- 
vation, both  believe  in  works  as  proof  of  faith. 

James  in  his  Epistle  perceives  echoes  of  the  teaching 
of  Jesus.  He  has  many  figures  of  speech  like  those 
of  Jesus.  He  was  in  very  truth  much  like  Jesus.  It 
is  not  improper  "to  say  that  both  had  a  common  inheri- 


JAMES  THE  MAN  OF  POISE  77 

tance  from  Mary  their  mother.  Hayes  notes  also  that 
James  was  called  a  just  man  as  was  Joseph  his  father 
(Matt,  i  :i9).  They  breathed  the  same  home  atmos- 
phere. 

It  is  possible  that  some  of  the  aphorisms  of  James 
come  from  Mary.  At  any  rate  his  Epistle  is  the  chief 
wisdom  book  of  the  New  Testament.  It  is  not  ab- 
stract philosophy,  but  practical  wisdom  applied  to 
actual  conditions  in  private  and  social  life.  The 
Epistle  is  modern  in  its  treatment  of  cleanness  of  per- 
sonal living  and  justice  between  employer  and  em- 
ploye. Sociological  problems  are  boldly  faced  and 
are  solved  in  the  spirit  of  Christ  and  of  human  brother- 
hood. One  can  find  in  the  parables  and  sayings  of 
Jesus  the  same  courageous  fairness  that  James  dis- 
plays. Pungent  paradox  and  crisp  epigram  occur  in 
the  teachings  of  Jesus  and  of  James. 

It  has  often  been  noted  that  the  speech  of  James 
and  letter  to  Antioch  in  Acts  15  closely  resemble  in 
style  the  Epistle  of  James.  He  was  clearly  a  man  of 
ability,  of  poise,  of  spiritual  reality,  of  energy,  of  lead- 
ership. He  knew  how  to  meet  actual  conditions  and 
to  apply  the  gospel  to  the  life  of  his  time.  It  was  a 
great  thing  for  the  church  in  Jerusalem  to  have  as  pas- 
tor such  a  man.  No  one  was  so  well  qualified  as  he 
to  write  a  message  to  Jewish  Christians  at  large  con- 
cerning the  evils  tEat  threatened  their  Christian  life. 
No  man's  words  would  carry  more  weight  in  the  dec- 
ade between  40  and  50  A.  D.  when  he  probably  wrote 
his  book  of  wisdom. 


78  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

VI.      JEW,    BUT    NOT   JUDAISER 

It  is  probable  that  the  reactionary  party  in  the  Jeru- 
salem church  claimed  James  as  one  of  them.  We 
know  what  they  did  when  they  appeared  in  Antioch 
after  the  Jerusalem  conference  and  attacked  Peter  for 
his  social  commingling  with  the  Greek  Christians  there 
(Gal.  2:11-14). 

It  is  possible,  of  course,  that  James  may  have  dis- 
approved of  this  social  freedom  on  the  part  of  Jewish 
Christians,  though  he  was  opposed  to  the  Judaisers  in 
their  controversy  with  Paul.  But  the  fact  that  James 
expressly  disclaims  (Acts  15:24)  responsibility  for  or 
connection  with  the  attack  of  the  Judaisers  on  Paul 
and  Barnabas  at  Antioch  makes  even  that  unlikely. 
Probably  James  had  kept  quiet  at  the  time  when  Peter 
was  arraigned  by  the  party  of  the  circumcision  (Acts 
i  :i-i8)  and  when  the  controversy  first  arose  at  Anti- 
och. He  was  not  a  man  to  take  a  position  rashly. 

But,  if  the  Judaisers  had  counted  on  James,  they 
were  sadly  disappointed.  Paul  tells  us  how  he  made 
certain  that  James  and  Peter  and  John  were  not  led 
astray  by  the  Judaisers  (Gal.  2:1-10).  There  is  a 
certain  amount  of  heat  in  Paul's  vigorous  narrative 
which  is  written  to  prove  his  equality  with  and  inde- 
pendence of  the  twelve  apostles.  The  vehemence  is 
partly  due,  at  any  rate,  to  the  conduct  of  the  Judaisers 
in  Galatia.  And  yet  in  the  private  conference  that 
Paul  had  with  the  leaders  in  Jerusalem  there  was  de- 
mand on  the  part  of  some  of  the  timid  brethren  that 
Paul  yield  in  the  case  of  Titus,  the  Greek  brother, 
whom  he  had  brought  with  him.  If  so,  they  would 


JAMES  THE  MAN  OF  POISE  79 

agree  for  Paul  to  have  freedom  for  the  other  Gentile 
Christians.  It  is  not  said  by  Paul  that  James,  or  Peter 
or  John,  took  that  view  and  wished  Titus  to  be  cir- 
cumcised. But  compromise  was  suggested  by  some. 
In  the  end  Peter,  James,  and  John  shook  hands  with 
Paul  and  Barnabas  as  their  equals  in  authority  and 
agreed  to  full  Gentile  liberty. 

There  is  a  trace  of  irritation  in  Paul's  tone  of  refer- 
ence to  these  "pillars."  It  is  possible  that  they  held 
back  from  openly  taking  Paul's  side  till  they  had 
heard  the  whole  story.  Paul  makes  it  clear  that  he 
does  not  consider  that  their  agreement  with  him  made 
his  cause  one  whit  more  right  than  it  was  before. 
Still,  he  was  glad  to  have  the  open  support  of  the 
Jerusalem  leaders. 

In  the  open  conference  after  this  private  discussion 
the  schedule  went  through  all  right.  Peter  cham- 
pioned the  cause  of  Paul  and  Barnabas.  James  spoke 
last  and  with  convincing  force  showed  by  the  Scrip- 
tures how  the  Gentiles  were  included  in  the  plan  of 
God.  He  suggested  that  the  Gentile  Christians  take 
pains  to  avoid  idolatry,  impurity,  and  murder  or  blood 
(according  to  the  Bezan  text).  But  he  was  wholly 
opposed  to  placing  the  yoke  of  Jewish  ceremonialism 
upon  the  necks  of  the  Gentile  Christians.  It  is  small 
wonder  that  the  Jerusalem  church  voted  unanimously 
with  Paul  and  Barnabas  after  such  a  deliverance  from 
James,  the  president  of  the  conference. 

James  appears  in  the  finest  light  on  this  occasion 
and  rendered  a  great  service  to  the  cause  of  spiritual 
freedom  for  all  time.  He  was  cautious  and  prudent, 
but  reliable  in  a  pinch.  He  had  the  courage  to  stand 


80  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

up  boldly  for  the  evangelical  faith  in  the  teeth  of  the 
Judaisers  who  had  counted  upon  him  to  lead  their 
forces  against  Paul.  If  he  had  done  so,  Christianity 
would  at  once  have  divided  into  Jewish  and  Gentile 
factions.  The  crisis  was  averted  by  the  fact  that 
James  stood  with  Paul. 

VII.    HIS   FATEFUL  ADVICE  TO   PAUL 

Montgomery  (Hastings's  "Dictionary  of  the  Apos- 
tolic Church")  thinks  that  James  merely  approved  the 
action  with  which  Paul  was  greeted  on  his  last  visit  to 
Jerusalem  (Acts  21 11^-26) .  Who  the  spokesman  was 
is  not  clear,  though  James  himself  (Rackham)  would 
be  the  natural  man.  The  elders  had  met  at  the  house 
of  James  (irpds  'laKufiov  21  :i8)  to  pay  their  respects  to 
Paul.  Probably  the  apostles  were  all  absent  from 
Jerusalem. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  regard  the  advice  given  Paul 
as  a  rebuke  to  Paul.  The  implication  is  plain  that 
James  and  the  elders  did  not  believe  the  accusation  of 
the  Judaisers  circulated  so  diligently  and  persistently 
(dinned  into  people's  ears,  Karrixridtjcrav  21:21)  that  Paul 
taught  Jewish  Christians  not  to  observe  the  customs 
of  the  fathers  and  taught  apostasy  from  Moses  by  the 
Jews.  Furneaux  thinks  that  "the  whole  tone  of  the 
narrative  implies  that  Paul  was  coldly  received."  I 
do  not  see  it  that  way,  for  Luke  expressly  says  that 
"the  brethren  received  us  gladly"  (21 117). 

The  company  that  thus  greeted  Paul  so  heartily  was 
probably  small  in  comparison  with  the  body  of  the 
church,  but  "St.  Paul  found  himself  a  brother  amongst 
brethren"  (Knowling,  "Commentary"  in  loco).  The 


JAMES  THE  MAN  OF  POISE  81 

spirit  of  the  formal  meeting  of  the  elders  on  the  next 
day  was  cordial  and  friendly. 

We  must  bear  in  mind  that  Paul  had  come  to  Jeru- 
salem this  time  with  a  heavy  heart  and  against  the 
advice  of  many  friends.  He  probably  observed  due 
caution  on  his  arrival  (Hort,  "Judaistic  Christianity," 
page  106).  (Acts  21:4,  11-14).  Paul  went  from  a 
strong  sense  of  duty  (20:22-24).  He  must  finish  his 
course  and  face  the  issue  in  Jerusalem  even  if  it  meant 
his  death  (21 113). 

He  had  long  seen  the  gathering  cloud  in  Jerusalem. 
The  Judaisers  had  not  lived  up  to  the  agreement  of 
the  Jerusalem  conference.  They  had  dogged  Paul's 
steps  and  injured  his  work  in  Galatia,  Achaia,  Mace- 
donia, Asia.  They  had  persistently  misrepresented 
Paul's  attitude.  He  had  fought  for  and  had  won  lib- 
erty for  Gentile  Christians  from  the  burden  of  Jewish 
ceremonialism.  He  had  held  to  the  moral  observances 
of  the  moral  law  as  a  proof  of  conversion,  but  had 
refused  to  impose  Moses  on  the  Gentiles  as  a  means 
of  salvation.  He  had  not  waged  war  on  the  Jewish 
Christians.  He  was  one  himself  and  felt  at  perfect 
liberty  to  observe  the  Mosaic  rites. 

In  fact,  Paul  had  celebrated  the  Passover  at  Philippi 
(Acts  20 :6)  and  had  made  a  point  to  get  to  Jerusalem 
in  time  for  Pentecost  (20:16).  He  had  come  to  bring 
alms  to  the  Jewish  Christians  from  the  Gentile  Chris- 
tians of  Achaia,  Asia,  Macedonia,  Galatia  to  show 
their  love  and  to  cement  the  bonds  between  Jewish 
and  Gentile  Christians  so  as  to  avoid  a  schism  (Rom. 
15:22-33). 

It  was  proposed  that  Paul  be  seen  in  the  temple 


82  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

offering  sacrifices  and  paying  for  them.  Actions  speak 
louder  than  words.  If  the  Jerusalem  disciples  see 
Paul  in  the  Temple  offering  sacrifices  and  paying  the 
charges  of  the  four  brethren  who  are  discharging  a 
vow,  that  will  be  the  end  of  all  controversy  on  the 
point  of  Paul's  real  teaching. 

Was  the  advice  of  James  wise  or  unwise?  The 
way  to  answer  that  question  is  to  keep  clear  in  one's 
mind  the  purpose  of  the  proposal.  The  object  of  the 
advice  was  to  prove  to  the  rank  and  file  of  the  Jerusa- 
lem church  that  the  Judaisers  had  misrepresented 
Paul's  attitude  toward  Jewish  Christians. 

Did  the  plan  accomplish  its  purpose?  There  is  no 
evidence  that  it  did  not.  To  be  sure,  trouble  grew 
out  of  the  execution  of  the  plan,  but  not  from  the 
Judaisers  and  not  from  the  Jerusalem  Christians. 

Paul  delivered  the  alms  that  he  had  brought  to  the 
church  and  spent  a  whole  week  in  the  fulfilment  of 
the  sacrificial  offerings  (Acts  21  127).  It  would  seem, 
that  the  full  purpose  of  the  proposal  was  attained.  In 
all  the  entanglements  that  follow  no  trouble  comes  from 
the  Jerusalem  church  or  from  the  Judaisers.  It  would 
seem,  therefore,  that  the  advice  was  sound  and  wise. 
The  peril  of  schism  was  averted.  The  reinstatement 
of  Paul  in  the  confidence  of  the  Jerusalem  church  was 
apparently  complete.  The  attack  that  was  made  on 
Paul  while  engaged  in  worship  in  the  Temple  (Acts 
21 113-22)  came  from  Jews  of  Ephesus  (Asia)  who 
had  hated  Paul  there  and  who  were  angered  by  seeing 
him  in  Jerusalem  (not  the  Temple)  in  company  with 
Trophimus,  a  Greek  Christian  of  Ephesus. 

It  was  Jewish  hate  that  exploded  against  Paul  in 


JAMES  THE  MAN  OF  POISE  83 

the  Temple,  an  echo  of  the  riot  in  Ephesus.  This 
attempt  to  lynch  Paul  by  the  Jews  was  made  while  Paul 
was  finishing  the  proposal  of  James,  but  it  might  have 
come  anyhow  on  some  other  occasion.  It  had  no  nec- 
essary connection  with  what  Paul  was  doing.  In  fact, 
he  was  in  the  very  act  of  honouring  the  Temple  when 
these  Asian  Jews  accused  him  of  dishonoring  it.  We 
may  well  decide,  therefore,  that  James  did  not  lose 
his  reputation  for  wisdom  and  for  sincere  friendship 
towards  Paul  by  the  outcome  of  his  advice. 

VIII.    THE    VICTIM    OF    JEWISH    HATE 

And  James  himself,  like  Paul,  was  to  fall  a  victim 
of  the  very  Jews  whom  he  so  sincerely  loved  and  tried 
to  help.  We  may  pass  by  the  highly  coloured  story  of 
Hegesippus,  in  Eusebius,  that  James  was  hurled  from 
the  pinnacle  of  the  Temple  to  his  death  because  he  re- 
fused to  renounce  and  denounce  Jesus  at  the  demand 
of  the  scribes  and  Pharisees.  But  Josephus  ("Antiq- 
uities," XX;  IX  :i)  has  a  sober  narrative  of  the  death 
of  James. 

The  testimony  of  Josephus  is  no  longer  pushed 
lightly  aside.  Festus  was  dead  and  Albinus  had  not 
yet  arrived.  So  Ananias  (son  of  the  Annas  of  the 
Gospels)  assembled  the  Sanhedrin  "and  he  brought 
before  it  the  brother  of  Jesus  who  is  called  Christ 
(his  name  was  James)  and  some  others,  and  delivered 
them  to  be  stoned,  on  a  charge  of  being  transgressors 
of  the  law." 

And  this  was  the  treatment  accorded  the  Jewish 
Christian  who  was  so  strict  a  Jew  that  the  Judaisers 
had  claimed  him  as  belonging  to  them.  Hegesippus 


84?  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

says  of  his  pious  exercises:  "His  knees  became  hard 
like  a  camel's  because  he  was  always  kneeling  in  the 
Temple,  asking  forgiveness  for  the  people." 

The  Jews,  the  rich  Jews  (Pharisees  and  Sadducees), 
had  killed  the  righteous  one  (James  5  :6),  the  brother 
and  Lord  of  James.  They  likewise  killed  James  the 
Just  (Righteous)  in  a  fit  of  passion  because  of  his 
love  for  and  loyalty  to  Jesus. 

Stephen  was  the  first  martyr  who  followed  in  the 
steps  of  Jesus.  Many  quickly  followed  in  his  train. 
James,  the  son  of  Zebedee,  soon  drank  his  cup  of  death 
(Acts  1 2-1,  2).  In  due  time  James,  the  brother  of 
Jesus,  took  his  place  among  these  immortal  heroes  of 
the  faith.  He  was  married  ( I  Cor.  9:5),  but  we  know 
nothing  beyond  the  fact  of  his  marriage.  His  per- 
sonality stands  out  in  bold  outline  among  the  great 
figures  of  early  Christianity. 


CHAPTER  V 

PHILEMON  THE  MAN  WITH  A  SOCIAL 
PROBLEM 

There  is  a  peculiar  modernness  about  the  problems 
raised  by  Paul's  Letter  to  Philemon.  Professor  Frank 
Granger  showed  in  the  September  (1920)  Expositor 
that  early  Christianity  faced  the  chasm  between  master 
and  slave  and  sought  to  bridge  it.  He  rightly  insists  on 
the  use  of  the  word  "slave"  for  SouXos  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. There  has  been  a  curious  squeamishness  in  the 
use  of  this  word  in  modern  English  versions  of  the 
New  Testament.  Professor  Granger  sees  clearly  also 
that  Paul's  words,  addressed  to  slaves,  do  not  apply  in 
all  respects  to  modern  workmen.  It  is  time  to  make  a 
fresh  study  of  the  whole  subject. 

I.      THE   LETTER   TO   PHILEMON   NOT   AN   EPISTLE 

Deissmann  is  right  in  contending  that  "Paul's  letter 
to  Philemon  is  no  doubt  the  one  most  clearly  seen  to 
be  a  letter.  Only  the  colour-blindness  of  pedantry 
could  possibly  regard  this  delightful  little  letter  as  2 
treatise  'On  the  Attitude  of  Christianity  to  Slavery.' 
In  its  intercession  for  a  runaway  slave  it  is  exactly 
parallel  to  the  letter,  quoted  above  (pp.  205-6),  from 
the  Papas  of  Hermupolis  to  the  officer  Abinnasus. 
Read  and  interpreted  as  a  letter  this  unobtrusive  relic 

85 


86  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

from  the  age  of  the  first  witnesses  is  one  of  the  most 
valuable  self-revelations  that  the  great  apostle  has 
left  us :  brotherly  feeling,  quiet  beauty,  tact  as  a  man 
of  the  world — all  these  are  discoverable  in  the  letter" 
("Light  from  the  Ancient  East,"  p.  226).  It  cannot  be 
admitted  that  Paul's  other  writings  are  "letters"  in 
the  same  sense  that  Deissmann  shows  to  be  true  of 
the  one  to  Philemon.  "The  letters  of  Paul  are  not 
literary;  they  are  real  letters,  not  epistles;  they  were 
written  by  Paul  not  for  the  public  and  posterity,  but 
for  the  persons  to  whom  they  are  addressed.  Almost 
all  the  mistakes  that  have  ever  been  made  in  the  study 
of  St.  Paul's  life  and  work  have  arisen  from  the  neg- 
lect of  the  fact  that  his  writings  are  non-literary  and 
letter-like  in  character"  (ibid.  p.  225).  And  Deiss- 
mann has  made  another  mistake  in  trying  to  make 
all  of  Paul's  epistles  to  be  of  the  same  mould.  We 
do  not  have  to  think  that  Paul  was  thinking  of  pos- 
terity. He  certainly  was  not  posing.  He  wrote  to 
meet  immediate  need  by  applying  the  principle  of 
Christianity  to  actual  problems  in  specific  cases.  But 
he  wrote  for  the  public  beyond  a  doubt.  He  wrote 
for  churches  or  for  groups  of  churches  and  expected 
his  epistles  to  be  read  in  public  and  to  be  passed  on 
from  church  to  church  (Col.  4:16).  He  gave  in- 
structions for  testing  the  genuineness  of  his  epistles 
(2  Thess.  2:2;  3:17).  He  expected  his  commands 
in  his  epistles  to  be  obeyed  (2  Thess.  3:14).  And 
even  the  Letter  to  Philemon  includes  a  message  to 
Apphia,  to  Archippus,  and  to  the  church  in  his  house. 
Paul  makes  his  appeal  to  Philemon,  but  he  has  in  mind 
in  the  background  the  group  of  disciples  who  met  in 


PHILEMON  WITH  A  SOCIAL  PROBLEM     87 

the  hospitable  home  of  Philemon.  It  is  an  utter  under- 
estimate of  Paul's  epistles  to  treat  them  as  merely 
personal  and  casual.  Paul  took  them  seriously  and 
meant  them  to  be  received  as  earnest  attempts  to  in- 
fluence the  lives  of  the  readers.  But  to  Philemon  Paul 
did  write  a  distinctly  personal  letter  about  a  domestic 
and  social  problem,  not  concerning  ecclesiastical  or  doc- 
trinal issues  as  in  the  Epistles  to  Timothy  and  Titus. 

It  is  true,  then,  that  the  Letter  to  Philemon  is  not  a 
formal  Epistle  like  that  to  the  Church  at  Rome,  nor 
is  it  a  treatise  on  the  attitude  of  Christianity  to  slavery, 
though  the  treatment  of  slavery  by  Christianity  is  in- 
volved, for  Paul  writes  with  this  very  fact  in  mind. 
There  is  this  difference,  therefore,  between  Paul's  Let- 
ter to  Philemon  and  the  little  letter  of  Caor,  Papas  of 
Hermupolis,  to  Flavius  Abinnaeus,  A.D.  346,  concern- 
ing a  runaway  soldier  by  the  name  of  Paul :  "I  would 
have  thee  know,  lord,  concerning  Paul  the  soldier, 
concerning  his  flight :  pardon  him  this  once,  seeing  that 
I  am  without  leisure  to  come  unto  thee  at  this  pres- 
ent. And,  if  he  desist  not,  he  will  come  again  into 
thy  hands  another  time." 

"This  little  letter  is  one  of  the  finest  among  the 
papyri,"  Deissmann  adds  (p.  205).  The  situation 
does  in  a  way  resemble  the  case  of  Onesimus,  though 
"the  Papas  is  not  fit  to  hold  a  candle  to  St.  Paul." 

The  chief  reason  is  that  Caor  is  merely  pleasant  and 
playful  and  makes  no  effort  to  grapple  with  the  real 
issue  involved  in  the  soldier's  desertion. 

Much  more  pertinent  is  the  letter  to  a  friend  by  the 
younger  Pliny  (Pliny,  Ep.  ix.  21),  in  which  this  "no- 
blest type  of  a  true  Roman  gentleman"  (Lightfoot, 


88  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

"Commentary,"  p.  317)  in  purest  diction  pleads  for  pity 
on  the  grounds  of  common  humanity.  "Your  freed- 
man,  with  whom  you  had  told  me  you  were  vexed, 
came  to  me,  and  throwing  himself  down  before  me 
clung  to  my  feet,  as  if  they  had  been  yours.  He  was 
profuse  in  his  tears  and  his  entreaties ;  he  was  profuse 
also  in  his  silence.  In  short,  he  convinced  me  of  his 
penitence.  I  believe  that  he  is  a  reformed  character, 
because  he  feels  that  he  has  done  wrong.  You  are 
angry,  I  know;  and  you  have  reason  to  be  angry,  this 
also  I  know;  but  mercy  wins  the  highest  praise  just 
when  there  is  the  most  righteous  cause  for  anger. 
You  loved  the  man,  and,  I  hope,  will  continue  to  love 
him,  meanwhile  it  is  enough  that  you  should  allow 
yourself  to  yield  to  his  prayers."  So  Pliny  proceeds 
to  plead  for  his  youth,  for  his  tears,  for  a  spirit  of 
gentleness,  for  a  second  chance.  There  is  no  need  to 
depreciate  the  nobility  of  Pliny's  plea.  Only  we  must 
note  how  unusual  this  note  of  pity  for  the  slave  is  in 
the  Roman  world.  Pliny  passes  Paul  in  the  graces  of 
rhetoric,  but  Paul's  spirit  strikes  deep  into  the  heart 
of  this  open  sore  of  the  world  and  searches  for  the 
only  real  cure  for  the  case  of  Onesimus  and  for  all 
slaves. 

II.      THE  VALUE   OF   THE  LETTER   TO   PHILEMON 

Lightfoot  claims  that  "as  an  expression  of  simple 
dignity,  of  refined  courtesy,  of  large  sympathy,  and 
of  warm  personal  affection  the  Epistle  to  Philemon 
stands  unrivalled"  ("Commentary,"  p.  317).  But  this 
high  estimate  of  the  letter  has  not  always  been  held. 
In  the  fourth  century  there  was  considerable  depre- 


PHILEMON  WITH  A  SOCIAL  PROBLEM     89 

ciation  of  the  letter  on  the  ground  that  it  was  un- 
worthy of  Paul  to  write  about  a  runaway  slave.  These 
critics,  concerned  chiefly  about  Christological  theories, 
denied  that  Paul  wrote  the  letter,  since  it  concerned 
neither  doctrine  nor  ecclesiastical  problems.  "Of  what 
account  was  the  fate  of  a  single  insignificant  slave, 
long  since  dead  and  gone,  to  those  before  whose  eyes 
the  battle  of  the  creeds  was  still  raging?"  (Lightfoot). 
Even  Marcion  had  retained  it  in  his  canon  and  Baur 
in  the  last  century  praised  the  noble  Christian  spirit 
of  the  letter,  while  denying  that  Paul  wrote  it.  But 
the  hyperorthodox  critics  of  the  fourth  century,  like 
the  radical  Baur  in  the  nineteenth,,  were  wrong.  Je- 
rome, Chrysostom,  and  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  ably 
championed  the  genuineness  of  the  Letter  to  Phile- 
mon. The  arguments  that  they  produced  have  never 
been  answered.  The  failure  to  appreciate  the  issue 
at  stake  in  the  case  of  Onesimus  is  precisely  what  has 
made  so  many  nominal  Christians  ineffective.  It  is 
more  concern  for  creed  than  for  conduct,  the  failure 
to  apply  Christianity  to  the  actual  conditions  of  life. 
Modern  Christian  scholars,  with  the  exception  of  Baur 
and  Van  Manen,  have  seen  the  spirit  of  Christ  in 
Paul's  plea  for  Onesimus.  Luther  terms  it  a  "right 
noble  and  lovely  example  of  Christian  love."  Calvin 
speaks  of  the  "life-like  portrayal  of  the  gentleness"  of 
Paul's  spirit  as  seen  here.  Franke  says  that  "the  single 
Epistle  to  Philemon  very  far  surpasses  all  the  wisdom 
of  the  world."  Ewald  notes  the  commanding  spirit 
and  tender  friendship  of  Paul  "in  this  letter,  at  once 
so  brief,  and  yet  so  surpassingly  full  and  significant." 
Sabatier  glows  with  enthusiasm.  "We  have  here  only 


90  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

a  few  familiar  lines,  but  so  full  of  grace,  of  salt,  of 
serious  and  trustful  affection,  that  this  short  epistle 
gleams  like  a  pearl  of  the  most  exquisite  purity  in  the 
rich  treasure  of  the  New  Testament."  It  is  needless 
to  quote  other  writers,  though  Renan  calls  it  "a  verit- 
able little  masterpiece  of  the  art  of  letter-writing." 
We  may  admit  that  Paul  wrote  many  personal  letters 
like  this  that  breathe  the  spirit  of  Christ.  Some  of 
them  may  yet  be  found.  But  we  can  at  least  be  grate- 
ful that  the  Letter  to  Philemon  has  been  preserved, 
that  it  still  carries  the  message  of  Christ  to  the  modern 
world  which  is  in  the  throes  of  a  social  revolution 
that  will  never  be  settled  till  it  is  settled  right,  in  har- 
mony with  the  teaching  of  this  little  letter. 

III.      THE  DATE   OF   THE   LETTER 

It  is  certain  that  Paul  was  a  prisoner  at  the  time 
when  he  wrote,  for  he  speaks  of  himself  as  "Paul  the 
aged,  and  now  a  prisoner  also  of  Christ  Jesus"  (verse 
9).  The  word  presbutes  apparently  here  means  "aged" 
and  not  "ambassador."  A  number  of  scholars  (Reuss, 
Weiss,  Hilgenfeld,  Holtzmann,  Hausrath,  Meyer) 
have  argued  for  Csesarea  rather  than  Rome  as  the 
place.  Some  even  contend  for  Ephesus.  But  it  is 
clear  that  the  latter  was  sent  at  the  same  time  as  that 
to  Colossse,  since  Onesimus  (Philemon  10,  13;  Col. 
4:9)  is  the  bearer  of  both  along  with  Tychicus  who 
is  also  bearer  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  or  Lao- 
diceans  (Col.  4:7,  16;  Eph.  6:21).  The  arguments 
in  favour  of  Csesarea  are  quite  indecisive.  The  near- 
ness of  Caesarea  to  Colossae  is  really  an  objection, 
since  Onesimus  could  hide  in  Rome  better  than  in 


PHILEMON  WITH  A  SOCIAL  PROBLEM     91 

Caesarea.  The  plan  of  Paul  for  going  to  Macedonia 
(Phil.  2:24)  does  not  weigh  against  Rome,  since  Paul 
could  go  on  to  Colossse  from  Philippi  or  the  reverse. 
It  is  not  necessary  to  decide  whether  Philippians  pre- 
cedes or  follows  Philemon,  though  Philippians  prob- 
ably comes  first.  At  any  rate  all  four  epistles  come 
within  the  period  of  Paul's  first  Roman  imprisonment 
(A.  D.  60-3).  If  Paul  was  born  about  the  beginning 
of  the  century,  he  would  be  about  sixty  years  old.  But 
he  had  endured  almost  incredible  hardships  and  perse- 
cutions (2  Cor.  n)  that  probably  made  him  show  his 
age  in  a  marked  degree.  Certain  it  is  that  he  writes 
as  one  thoroughly  familiar  with  conditions  in  the  Ro- 
man Empire.  He  writes  out  of  a  full  heart  from  the 
centre  of  Roman  life  to  a  city  in  a  far  distant  province, 
but  the  subject  of  slavery  touches  one  of  the  nerve 
centres  of  Roman  life. 

IV.      THE   PICTURE   OF   PHILEMON 

We  know  nothing  of  Philemon  except  what  this 
letter  tells  us.  The  Apostolical  Constitutions  repre- 
sent him  as  bishop  of  Colossse  and  pseudo-Dositheus 
(sixth  century)  as  bishop  of  Gaza.  Greek  Martyr- 
ology  tells  that  he,  Apphia,  Archippus,  and  Onesimus 
were  all  stoned  before  Androcles  the  governor  in  the 
days  of  Nero.  The  Latin  Martyrology  likewise  agrees 
with  this  story.  In  the  Menea  for  November  22  he  is 
called  a  "holy  apostle."  But  all  this  may  be  passed 
by  as  legendary.  Philemon  was  a  citizen  of  Colossae 
(Col.  4:9;  Philemon  n).  He  was  a  convert  of  Paul: 
"Thou  owest  to  me  even  thine  own  self  besides"  (Phile- 
mon 19).  It  is  probable,  therefore,  since  Paul  had 


92  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

not  been  to  Colossae  (Col.  2:1},  that  Philemon  was 
converted  in  Ephesus  during  Paul's  three  years  there 
when  the  gospel  spread  over  the  province  of  Asia  (Acts 
19:10).  There  was  easy  and  constant  communica- 
tion between  Ephesus  and  the  Lycus  Valley  by  one  of 
the  Roman  roads  that  linked  the  great  cities  together. 
It  is  not  certain  that  Philemon  was  a  preacher.  He 
may  have  been  simply  an  active  layman.  Paul  speaks 
of  him  as  "our  beloved  and  fellow- worker"  (Phile- 
mon i ) ,  but  sunergos  can  apply  to  a  layman.  He  had 
a  church  in  his  house  (Philemon  2),  though  here 
again  we  cannot  tell  whether  it  is  the  whole  Church 
in  Colossae  that  met  with  Philemon  because  he  was 
the  elder  (or  one  of  the  elders)  or  merely  a  church 
group  that  met  in  his  house  for  convenience.  In 
either  case  it  is  plain  that  Philemon  was  a  man  of 
some  property  and  standing  to  afford  a  house  large 
enough  for  this  purpose.  Besides,  he  had  slaves,  of 
whom  Onesimus  had  been  one,  and  a  family.  It  seems 
that  Apphia  was  his  wife,  and  Archippus  their  son. 
Paul  speaks  affectionately  of  her  as  "our  sister,"  and 
of  Archippus  as  "our  fellow-soldier."  It  is  suggested 
by  Zahn  that  he  was  the  reader  of  the  church,  and  by 
Abbott  ("Int.  Crit.  Comm.")  that  he  was  a  presbyter 
in  the  Church  or  at  least  an  evangelist.  It  is  even 
held  from  Colossians  4:17  that  Archippus  was  elder  in 
the  Church  of  Laodicea:  "And  say  to  Archippus,  take 
heed  to  the  ministry  which  thou  hast  received  in  the 
Lord,  that  thou  fulfil  it."  At  any  rate  we  have  the 
picture  of  a  delightful  Christian  home,  where  all  were 
active  in  Christian  service. 

As  to  Philemon  Paul  has  the  kindest  words  of  praise 


PHILEMON  WITH  A  SOCIAL  PROBLEM      93 

(Philemon  4-7)  for  him.  Paul  offers  for  him  one  of 
the  great  prayers  of  all  time.  This  prayer  for  Phile- 
mon follows  the  usual  order,  but  it  is  full  of  passion 
and  power.  He  makes  mention  of  Philemon  in  his 
prayers  and  he  is  always  grateful  because  of  what  he 
has  heard,  probably  through  Epaphras  (Col.  1 17,  814: 
12),  concerning  the  love  which  he  had  for  all  the 
saints  and  the  faith  which  he  had  toward  the  Lord 
Jesus.  And  yet  Paul  has  "love  and  faith"  together  as 
if  both  of  them  were  exercised  toward  the  Lord  Jesus 
and  towards  the  saints.  Certainly  both  words  can 
be  so  employed,  though  not  with  quite  the  same  con- 
tent. First  come  love  for  and  faith  in  the  Lord  Jesus, 
then  love  for  and  faith  in  the  saints.  Paul  had  experi- 
enced (eschon,  effective  aorist)  much  joy  and  consola- 
tion in  the  love  of  Philemon,  "because  the  hearts  of 
the  saints  have  been  refreshed  (same  verb  in  Matt,  n  : 
28,  "I  will  give  you  rest")  through  thee,  brother" 
(Philemon  7).  Philemon  evidently  was  liberal  and 
active  in  his  beneficence,  just  the  sort  of  man  to  cheer 
a  preacher's  heart.  He  was  on  the  look  out  for  oppor- 
tunities of  doing  good.  So  then  (ver.  6)  Paul  prays 
"that  the  fellowship  of  thy  faith  may  become  effectual 
in  the  knowledge  of  every  good  thing  which  is  in  you, 
unto  Christ."  The  fellowship  (koinonia)  is  the  com- 
mon word  for  contribution  or  more  exactly  partner- 
ship. The  word  for  "effectual"  (energes)  is  our  word 
energy  (at  work).  Paul's  prayer,  therefore,  is  that 
Philemon's  generosity  may  become  really  effective, 
that  he  may  know  it  himself,  that  God  may  carry  him 
on  in  service  for  Christ.  The  prayer  itself  is  a  tribute 


94  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

and   shows  that   Paul  considers  him  worthy  of  the 
great  things  that  he  means  to  ask  of  him. 

Paul  has  a  genuine  affection  for  Philemon,  as  is. 
manifest.  He  is  "our  beloved  and  fellow- worker" 
(2)  ;  he  speaks  of  "thy  goodness"  (14)  ;  "if  then  thou 
countest  me  partner"  (17,  koinonon,  like  our  "pal";  cf. 
Luke  5:10.  James  and  John  were  "partners  with 
Simon")  ;  "I  hope  that  through  your  prayers  I  shall 
be  granted  unto  you"  (Philemon  22).  Paul  plainly 
feels  a  close  bond  of  fellowship  with  Philemon.  In  all 
probability  Philemon  had  come  to  be  one  of  his  chief 
helpers  in  Asia  while  Paul  was  in  Ephesus.  He  is  thus 
at  liberty  to  address  Philemon  upon  any  topic. 

V.       THE    CONDUCT   OF   ONESIMUS 

It  had  been  very  bad.  In  plain  English,  he  was  a 
runaway  slave  and  a  thief  besides.  Paul  would  hardly 
have  said,  "But  if  he  hath  wronged  thee  at  all  or  oweth 
thee  aught"  (ver.  18),  unless  it  were  true.  Paul  states 
the  matter  delicately  and  hypotlietically  as  a  debt,  but 
his  meaning  is  clear.  Onesimus  was,  of  course,  still  a 
heathen  when  he  ran  away  and  defrauded  his  master 
of  his  services.  He  may,  indeed,  have  seen  Paul  in 
Ephesus  on  a  visit  with  his  master  Philemon,  but  it 
seems  clear  that  he  was  not  converted  till  coming  to 
Rome.  Evil  men,  Tacitus  says,  flocked  to  Rome, 
gladiators,  soldiers,  soothsayers,  slaves.  Among  the 
Jews  slaves  were  very  few,  but  in  Athens  there  were 
four  times  as  many  slaves  as  citizens.  Wealthy  Roman 
landowners  sometimes  possessed  twenty  thousand 
slaves.  It  is  not  known  how  many  slaves  were  in  the 
Roman  Empire,  probably  six  or  seven  million.  These 


PHILEMON  WITH  A  SOCIAL  PROBLEM     95 

slaves  were  sometimes  very  degraded  people,  some- 
times people  of  culture  and  former  wealth,  victims  of 
war  and  rapine.  Freedmen  like  Epictetus  often  rep- 
resented the  highest  culture  of  the  community  and  were 
the  school-teachers  and  philosophers  of  the  time. 
Roman  law  gave  the  slave  no  rights  and  no  protection. 
Not  till  Constantine's  time  did  they  have  any  rights 
as  husband  and  wife.  Even  Aristotle  spoke  of  the 
slave  as  a  "live  chattel"  or  property  (Pol.  i,  4)  or  a 
"live  implement"  (Eth.  Nic.  viii,  13).  "The  slave  was 
absolutely  at  his  master's  disposal;  for  the  smallest 
offence  he  might  be  scourged,  mutilated,  crucified, 
thrown  to  the  wild  beasts"  (Light foot,  p.  319).  A 
Roman  senator,  Pedanius  Secundus,  had  been  slain  by 
one  of  his  slaves  in  anger.  In  revenge  four  hundred 
slaves  were  executed.  The  populace  rebelled  and  tried 
to  prevent  the  tragedy,  but  Roman  soldiers  lined  the 
road  as  the  slaves  were  led  to  execution.  Rome  lived 
over  a  volcano  and  each  man  had  "as  many  enemies  as 
slaves."  Onesimus  was  not  merely  a  runaway  slave 
and  a  thief,  a  representative  of  "the  least  respectable 
type  of  the  least  respectable  class  in  the  social  scale" 
(Lightfoot,  p.  309),  but  he  was  also  a  Phrygian  slave. 
The  Phrygians  were  despised  most  of  all,  and  Onesi- 
mus had  lived  up  to  the  bad  reputation  of  his  race 
and  of  his  class.  His  name,  forsooth,  was  good  enough 
(meaning  "useful")  but  he  had  proved  "unprofitable" 
(Philemon  1 1 )  to  Philemon.  Paul  makes  the  pun  upon 
his  name  after  his  conversion  when  he  had  proved  true 
to  his  name.  Many  slaves  and  freedmen  bore  the 
name  Onesimus.  Paul  does  not  try  to  conceal  the 
crime  of  Onesimus.  He  had  sunk  to  the  bottom. 


96 

He  had  come  to  Rome  and  wallowed  in  this  cesspool 
of  humanity  as  one  of  the  offscourings  of  humanity. 
He  was  in  no  sense  a  hero,  not  even  with  Paul.  One 
is  reminded  of  the  "underground  railway"  before  and 
during  the  Civil  War  in  the  United  States,  when  the 
runaway  slaves  escaped  over  the  Ohio  River  to  free- 
dom. It  is  a  dark  picture  even  as  Paul  draws  it  with 
his  delicate  and  sympathetic  pen. 

VI.   THE  PROBLEM  BEFORE  PAUL 

We  do  not  know  why  Onesimus  came  to  Paul,  who 
was  himself  a  prisoner  under  military  guard,  though 
living  in  his  own  hired  house.  It  may  have  been 
Epaphras  who  recognised  Onesimus  and  who  brought 
him  to  Paul.  It  may  have  been  one  of  the  soldiers 
whom  Paul  had  won  to  Christ.  It  may  have  been  the 
memory  of  the  words  of  Philemon  or  of  others  at  the 
gatherings  in  Colossse;  it  may  have  been  the  lashings 
of  a  guilty  conscience;  it  may  have  been  sheer  want 
from  hunger  or  even  desperation  (Lightfoot).  Of 
this  we  cannot  tell.  The  famous  Rescue  Mission 
worker,  Rev.  Melvin  Trotter,  was  on  the  way  to  com- 
mit suicide  in  Lake  Michigan,  when  he  was  drawn  into 
the  Pacific  Garden  Mission  in  Chicago  and  converted. 
The  hour  of  man's  extremity  is  God's  opportunity. 
Somehow  Onesimus  came  under  the  spell  of  Paul's 
influence  and  was  won  to  Christ.  The  conversion  was 
genuine  and  Paul  was  sure  of  the  result.  But  what 
should  Paul  advise  Onesimus  to  do?  Legally  he  was 
still  the  slave  of  Philemon,  who  could  put  him  to  death 
for  his  crime.  Certainly  Philemon,  as  a  Christian, 
would  not  do  that.  But  should  Onesimus  go  back  at 


PHILEMON  WITH  A  SOCIAL  PROBLEM      97 

all  and  re-enter  the  life  of  slavery  now  that  he  was 
Christ's  freeman?  The  answer  is  not  an  easy  one. 
"Onesimus  had  repented,  but  he  had  not  made  restitu- 
tion" (Lightfoot).  D.  L.  Moody  used  to  preach  the 
duty  of  restitution  with  great  vigour.  Onesimus  could 
not  offer  to  make  restitution  without  going  back  under 
the  yoke  of  slavery.  Shall  Paul  send  him  back?  That 
is  the  problem.  If  he  does  not  send  him  back  he  has 
wronged  both  Onesimus  and  Philemon.  If  he  sends 
him  back  he  may  likewise  wrong  them  both  if  Phile- 
mon continues  to  treat  Onesimus  merely  as  a  slave  as 
if  nothing  had  changed  their  relations  with  each  other. 
So  Paul  chooses  the  latter  alternative.  He  will  send 
Onesimus  back  to  Philemon  under  the  guard  of  Tychi- 
cus  (Col.  4:7-9),  but  with  a  powerful  appeal  to 
Philemon  for  forgiveness  towards  Onesimus.  Did  he 
do  right?  Should  he  have  done  more?  Should  he 
have  attacked  slavery  as  an  institution?  Should  he 
have  aroused  the  slaves  in  the  Roman  Empire  to  re- 
volt ?  Did  Paul  wink  at  slavery  ? 

VII.       PAUL'S    PLEA    FOR   ONESIMUS 

It  is  not  admitted  by  all  that  Paul  recognised  slavery 
to  be  an  evil.  He  does  urge  Christian  slaves  to  be 
indifferent  to  their  bondage  (i  Cor.  7:21),  "but  if 
thou  canst  become  free,  use  it  rather"  (margin  of  Re- 
vised Version),  that  is,  "become  free."  Certainly  Paul 
means  (7:22f.)  that  our  relation  to  Christ  is  the  main 
thing.  The  slave  can  be  Christ's  freedman.  That  is 
the  chief  thing.  But  Paul  taught  the  Christian  doc- 
trine of  liberty  that  works  against  all  autocracy  and 
oppression:  "There  can  be  neither  Jew  nor  Greek, 


98  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

there  can  be  neither  bond  nor  free,  there  can  be  no 
male  and  female;  for  ye  are  all  one  man  in  Christ 
Jesus"  (Gal.  3:28).  That  is  absolutely  revolutionary 
doctrine,  as  I  have  tried  to  show  in  my  book,  "The 
New  Citizenship."  That  leaven  began  to  work  in  the 
first  century  as  the  result  of  Paul's  preaching.  "The 
old  world  was  parted  by  deep  gulfs.  There  were  three 
of  special  depth  and  width,  across  which  it  was  hard 
for  sympathy  to  fly.  These  were  the  distinctions  of 
race,  sex,  and  condition"  (Maclaren,  "Colossians  and 
Philemon,"  p.  224).  We  do  not  have  to  say  that  Paul 
thought  out  the  full  development  of  this  platform  of 
freedom.  The  important  thing  is  that  he  had  pro- 
claimed it.  He  had  urged  Christian  slaves  to  be  good 
servants,  but  he  had  insisted  that  Christian  masters  be 
just  and  merciful  to  their  slaves.  Paul  was  not  uncon- 
cerned about  the  social  wrongs  in  the  world  of  his  day. 
He  attacked  those  wrongs  courageously  and  with  con- 
summate wisdom. 

In  the  letter  to  Philemon  Paul  applies  his  principle 
of  freedom  in  Christ  to  the  specific  case  of  Onesimus. 
He  is  in  the  realm  of  the  concrete,  and  is  not  a  mere 
doctrinaire  reformer.  It  is  to  be  noted  at  once  that 
Paul  deals  with  Onesimus  as  a  man  and  as  a  brother. 
There  were  occasional  instances  of  pity  for  slaves  on 
the  part  of  masters,  as  in  the  case  of  the  younger  Pliny 
(Ep.  8:16),  but  as  a  rule  there  was  an  utter  lack 
of  regard  for  the  slave  as  a  man  at  all.  Aristotle 
thought  that  one  should  have  no  friendship  with  a 
slave  as  a  slave,  but  might  deal  with  him  as  a  man. 
No  such  subtle  philosophy  troubled  Paul.  Paul  took 
Onesimus  "both  in  the  flesh  and  in  the  Lord"  (Phile- 


PHILEMON  WITH  A  SOCIAL  PROBLEM     99 

mon  16),  "as  a  brother  beloved"  (16),  as  his  very 
"child"  (10),  as  Paul's  "very  heart"  (12).  We  know 
from  the  papyri  that  many  slaves  became  Christians. 
The  Letter  to  Philemon  makes  it  plain  why  it  was  true. 
Here  alone,  in  Christianity,  were  slaves  treated  as 
human  beings.  Here  they  were  called  "brothers." 
Here  they  could  find  usefulness  and  promotion.  Many 
of  the  slaves  became  pastors  of  the  Churches.  The 
millions  of  slaves  in  the  Roman  Empire  saw  in  Chris- 
tianity their  one  ray  of  hope.  They  were  right. 
Christianity  is  still  fighting  the  battles  of  race,  class, 
and  sex.  The  great  war  that  is  just  over  gathered 
up  all  these  issues.  They  will  be  fought  to  a  finish  in 
accord  with  the  Spirit  of  Christ. 

Paul  does  not  leave  the  case  there.  He  does  unhesi- 
tatingly and  frankly  take  Onesimus  to  his  bosom  and 
heart  as  a  brother  in  Christ.  But  he  does  more.  He 
boldly  asks  that  Philemon  shall  do  the  same.  But  not 
without  restitution.  Paul  gives  his  note  of  hand  to 
that  effect.  "I  will  repay  it"  (ver.  19).  "Put  that 
to  mine  account"  (ver.  18).  Paul  uses  the  technical 
language  for  debt  that  is  so  common  in  the  papyri. 
But  that  is  merely  to  clear  the  path  for  the  real  test. 
Paul  asks  that  Philemon  take  Onesimus  back,  without 
punishment,  to  be  sure.  Paul  has  sent  him  back  re- 
luctantly because  he  had  found  him  useful  (vers.  I2f.). 
But  he  wishes  Philemon  to  have  the  privilege  of  being 
generous  with  Onesimus  (vers.  I4f.).  Paul  claims 
the  right  as  an  apostle  to  enjoin  (give  military  orders, 
epitassein,  ver.  8)  upon  Philemon  what  is  befitting. 
Moral  propriety  (cf.  Col.  3  :i8,  for  this  same  word) 
brings  moral  obligation.  Paul  wishes  Philemon  to 


100  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

have  the  chance  to  come  up  of  his  own  accord,  willingly 
and  as  a  matter  of  judgment,  not  of  necessity  under 
pressure  from  Paul  (Philemon  14).  Hence  Paul  ap- 
peals and  exhorts  by  reason  of  love  as  the  true  principle 
by  which  to  act.  He  adds  also  the  fact  that  Paul  who 
pleads  for  Onesimus  is  the  aged  (or  the  ambassador  of 
Jesus)  and  a  prisoner  of  Christ,  and  has  a  right  to  be 
heard  by  reason  of  the  scars  of  service  that  he  bears 
(cf.  Gal.  6:17). 

Paul  does  not  wish  Philemon  to  think  that  he  is 
trying  to  push  off  on  him  a  tough  case  that  is  in  his 
way.  On  the  contrary,  he  has  found  positive  pleasure 
in  the  service  of  Onesimus,  and  could  wish  to  keep 
him  both  for  his  own  worth  and  to  take  the  place  of 
Philemon  who  is  so  far  away  (vers.  12,  13).  It  is 
a  delicate  compliment  to  both  Philemon  and  Onesimus. 
The  essential  refinement  of  Paul's  nature  appears  at 
every  turn  in  this  charming  and  courteous  and  en- 
nobling letter.  Paul  appeals  to  the  best  side  of  Phile- 
mon's nature.  He  assumes  that  his  being  a  slaveholder 
had  not  debased  his  humanitarian  feelings.  The  ten- 
dency was  in  that  direction,  as  "Uncle  Tom's  Cabin" 
showed.  But  it  was  not  necessary  for  a  Christian  man 
to  yield  to  the  brutalising  influence  of  mere  power,  as 
the  lives  of  Washington,  Lee,  and  Jackson  abundantly 
prove.  The  nobler  side  of  the  institution  of  slavery 
in  the  South  is  well  shown  in  Mrs.  Smede's  "The 
Southern  Planter"  and  in  Thomas  Nelson  Page's 
"Marse  Chan"  and  other  Virginian  stories.  But  the 
peril  of  slavery  was  and  is  that  the  slave  was  at  the 
mercy  of  a  conscienceless  master  who  could  hold  him 
down  and  even  ruin  his  life. 


PHILEMON  WITH  A  SOCIAL  PROBLEM    101 

Paul  treats  with  Philemon  on  the  basis  of  humanity 
and  Christianity.  He  admits  all  the  technical  legal 
claims  upon  Onesimus,  but  boldly  begs  for  his  recep- 
tion by  Philemon  not  merely  as  a  pardoned  runaway 
slave  who  is  restored  to  his  former  status.  That  is 
only  the  first  step.  Paul  dares  to  go  further  and  to 
ask  that  Philemon  receive  him  "no  longer  as  a  slave, 
but  more  than  a  slave,  a  brother  beloved,  specially 
to  me,  but  how  much  rather  to  thee,  both  in  the  flesh 
and  in  the  Lord"  (ver.  16).  Imagine  a  slave  in  the 
home  who  is  no  longer  a  slave,  but  a  brother  beloved ! 
It  is  a  revolutionary  request,  possible  only  on  the  plea 
of  love.  "For  perhaps  he  was  therefore  parted  from 
thee  for  a  season,  that  thou  shouldest  have  him  for 
ever"  (ver.  15).  Could  anything  surpass  this  turn  in 
interpreting  God's  overruling  providence? 

Paul  is  fully  aware  that  he  has  gone  pretty  far  with 
Philemon.  But  he  means  to  go  farther.  "If  then  thou 
countest  me  a  partner,  receive  him  as  myself"  (ver. 
17).  He  expects  Onesimus  to  be  treated  in  all  essen- 
tials as  Paul  would  be  in  social  and  religious  privileges. 
It  is  clear  that  Onesimus  was  a  man  of  parts  in  spite 
of  his  conduct  and  his  Phrygian  blood.  There  was 
the  making  of  a  man  in  him.  Paul  wants  him  to  have 
his  chance.  He  is  expecting  to  come  to  see  Philemon 
when,  through  his  prayers,  he  is  released  from  bondage 
in  Rome,  and  he  confidently  asks  that  his  lodging  be 
gotten  ready  (ver.  22).  All  this  adds  to  the  piquancy 
of  the  request  for  handsome  treatment  of  Onesimus, 
as  if  Paul  had  already  come.  It  is  the  perfection  of 
courtesy  and  dignity  and  courage.  Paul  is  sure  that 
Philemon  wishes  to  make  him  happy :  "Yea,  brother, 


102  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

let  me  have  joy  of  thee  in  the  Lord :  refresh  my  heart 
in  Christ"  (ver.  20).  The  very  word  for  "have  joy" 
(onaimen)  is  the  same  root  as  the  name  Onesimus, 
itself  a  playful  plea  for  the  Christian  slave.  The  word 
for  "refresh"  is  the  one  already  employed  concerning 
Philemon  in  verse  7.  The  word  for  "heart"  is  here 
the  third  time  in  the  letter  (7,  12,  20),  and  is  a  very 
tender  emotional  word  of  strong  feeling. 

Surely  St.  Paul  has  finished  his  plea.  But  no,  he 
has  one  more  word  before  he  closes.  It  is  plain  enough 
that,  if  Philemon  accedes  to  Paul's  request,  Onesimus 
will  be  "no  longer  a  slave."  He  must  be  set  free.  And 
yet  Paul  hesitates  to  write  that  word.  He  means  it, 
and  he  makes  Philemon  see  it  staring  at  him  all 
through  the  letter,  but  he  wishes  Philemon  to  spell  it 
voluntarily,  "that  thy  goodness  should  not  be  as  of 
necessity,  but  of  free  will"  (ver.  14).  Freedmen  were 
common  enough  in  the  Roman  Empire.  Sometimes 
freedom  was  won  by  some  deed  of  heroism.  The  slave 
occasionally  saved  money  and  bought  his  own  freedom. 
The  master  sometimes  voluntarily  freed  a  slave.  Some- 
times a  man  of  generous  impulses  paid  the  price  of  a 
slave  and  set  him  free.  The  papyri  and  ostraca  furnish 
many  illustrations  of  Paul's  very  language  on  this  point 
(Gal.  5:1,  13).  Christ  paid  the  price  of  our  bondage 
with  His  blood  and  set  us  free.  This  is  the  language 
of  Paul  and  Peter  and  of  John.  "For  freedom  did 
Christ  set  us  free"  (Gal.  5:1).  Paul  will  not  use  the 
word  "freedom"  to  Philemon,  but  he  ventures  to  hint 
it  so  clearly  that  there  can  be  no  mistake.  "Having 
confidence  in  thine  obedience,  I  write  unto  thee,  know- 
ing that  thou  wilt  do  even  beyond  what  I  say"  (ver. 


PHILEMON  WITH  A  SOCIAL  PROBLEM.  103 

21 ).  Beyond  what  Paul  had  said,  but  not  beyond  what 
he  had  meant.  Paul  is  sure  that  the  sense  of  duty  in 
Philemon  will  compel  obedience  to  the  highest  things. 
Noblesse  oblige.  The  very  nobility  of  Philemon's  char- 
acter as  a  Christian  will  compel  him  to  set  Onesimus 
free.  So  Paul  rests  his  plea.  The  word  for  freedom 
has  trembled  on  his  lips  all  through  the  letter,  but 
out  of  considerations  of  respect  for  Philemon  it  has 
not  escaped.  But  Philemon  was  bound  to  know  what 
Paul  meant. 

Did  he  set  Onesimus  free?  We  do  not  know.  "It 
cannot  be  imagined  that  this  appeal  in  behalf  of  .Onesi- 
mus was  in  vain"  (Rutherford).  Tradition  ("Apos- 
tolical Canons,"  82)  relates  that  Philemon  forgave 
Onesimus  and  manumitted  him.  All  sorts  of  rumours 
gained  currency  about  Onesimus.  One  is  that  he  be- 
came bishop  in  Bercea  ("Apost.  Const."  vii,  46), 
another  that  he  journeyed  to  Spain,  another  that  he 
was  martyred  in  Rome  or  at  Puteoli.  E.  A.  Abbott 
has  written  a  fictitious  story  of  what  might  have  hap- 
pened to  him  in  his  "Onesimus." 

VIII.      CHRISTIANITY   IN   THE   MARKET   PLACE 

Why  did  not  Paul  attack  slavery  as  an  institution? 
Did  he  mean  to  imply  that  slavery  is  wrong  per  se? 
These  questions  are  easier  to  ask  than  to  answer. 
Advocates  of  slavery  have  claimed  that  Paul  in  the 
Letter  to  Philemon  condones  slavery  as  an  institution. 
Enemies  of  slavery  argue  that  he  shows  himself  the 
foe  of  slavery.  Vincent  ("Int.  Crit.  Comm.,"  p.  165) 
thinks  that  "it  is  more  than  questionable  whether  St. 
Paul  had  grasped  the  postulate  of  the  modern  Chris^ 


104  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

tian  consciousness  that  no  man  has  the  right  to  own, 
another."  It  was  not  necessary  for  him  to  see  that., 
But  Paul  was  bound  to  be  conscious  of  what  he  was 
doing.  He  definitely  and  boldly  took  the  side  of  liberty 
in  this  plea  for  Onesimus  as  he  had  fought  for  and 
had  won  the  freedom  of  Titus  from  Jewish  legalism 
(Gal.  2:1-10).  The  whole  issue  was  summed  up  in 
each  instance  in  a  concrete  case.  "The  letter  to  Phile- 
mon is  the  first  indication  in  Christian  literature  that 
the  problem  of  the  relation  of  master  to  slave  must  be 
seriously  affected  by  the  new  conception  of  the  brother- 
hood of  man,  which  Christ's  apostles  had  set  themselves 
to  proclaim"  (Bernard).  A  little  leaven  would  in  time 
leaven  the  whole  lump.  It  seems  a  long  step  and  « 
long  time  from  Paul's  gracious  words  to  Philemon  to 
Lincoln's  blunt  assertion  that  the  Union  cannot  con- 
tinue half-slave  and  half-free.  But  it  is  safe  to  affirm 
that  Paul  made  possible  Lincoln's  emancipation  proc- 
lamation. 

Paul  was  not  an  anarchist,  as  is  plain  from  Romans 
13:1-7.  He  believed  in  government,  and  taught 
obedience  save  where  conscience  was  attacked.  Then 
he  was  not  slow  to  assert  his  rights.  The  slave  was 
quick  to  see  the  help  that  Christianity  offered  him.  The 
slaves  flocked  to  Christ  in  large  numbers.  Christianity 
had  to  show  that  its  adherents  could  make  good  citizens 
of  the  Roman  Empire  as  well  as  good  members  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven.  That  issue  is  still  a  vital  one. 
Christ  and  Caesar  are  still  rival  claimants  for  our 
loyalty.  Some  men  have  not  learned  how  to  be  true 
to  both.  "Whatever  may  have  been  the  range  of  Paul's 
outlook,  the  policy  which  he  pursued  vindicated  itself 


PHILEMON  WITH  A  SOCIAL  PROBLEM    105 

in  the  subsequent  history  of  slavery.  The  principles 
of  the  gospel  not  only  curtailed  its  abuses,  but  de- 
stroyed the  thing  itself;  for  it  could  not  exist  without 
its  abuses"  (Vincent,  p.  167).  Paul  insisted  on  the 
duty  of  the  master  to  be  just  to  the  slave  (Eph.  6:9; 
Col.  4:1).  Christians  learned  the  habit  of  freeing 
their  slaves.  "Sepulchral  paintings  often  represent  the 
master  standing  before  the  Good  Shepherd  with  a  band 
of  slaves  liberated  at  his  death,  pleading  for  him  at 
the  last  judgment"  (Vincent,  p.  168).  Christian  slaves 
sat  side  by  side  with  the  master  in  church  and  par- 
took of  the  communion  together.  Slaves  became  pres- 
byters. "The  Christian  teachers  and  clergymen  be- 
came known  as  'the  brothers  of  the  slave,'  and  the  slaves 
themselves  were  called  'the  freedmen  of  Christ' ' 
(Brace,  "Gesta  Christi").  From  Constantine  to  the 
tenth  century  laws  were  passed  to  help  the  slaves. 

One  may  grow  impatient  that  it  took  so  long  for  the 
shackles  to  be  loosed  from  the  slaves  of  the  world  even 
in  so-called  Christian  lands.  One  has  to  reckon  with 
the  grip  of  money  and  selfishness  and  love  of  power 
and  pleasure.  Even  Christian  men  relax  their  hold 
upon  privilege  and  power  slowly  and  reluctantly.  But 
the  principle  of  love  and  equality  in  the  Letter  to 
Philemon  was  in  the  end  bound  to  destroy  slavery.  "It 
was  only  a  question  of  time"  (Lightfoot). 

There  have  been  times  when  Christianity  was  called 
a  dead  letter  because  slavery  was  allowed.  It  has 
even  been  justified  by  Christian  preachers.  But  the 
chivalry  of  the  gospel  was  at  work.  Social  prejudices 
received  a  wound  when  slave  girls  like  Blandina  in 
Gaul  or  Felicitas  in  Africa  became  martyrs  and  were 


106  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

celebrated  in  festivals  (Light foot).  The  day  came 
when  Britain  turned  upon  slavery  as  an  accursed  thing. 
"The  abolition  of  slavery  throughout  the  British  Em- 
pire at  an  enormous  material  sacrifice  is  one  of  the 
greatest  moral  conquests  which  England  has  ever 
achieved"  (Lightfoot,  pp.  326f.).  In  the  United  States 
we  were  not  so  wise,  and  it  cost  blood  and  treasure 
untold  to  set  the  negro  free.  But  it  was  done  in 
Britain  and  America  in  response  to  the  Christian  im- 
pulse. Lightfoot  dares  to  claim  that  the  era  of  libera- 
tion for  mankind  came  as  a  result  of  the  Letter  to 
Philemon.  The  leaven  had  finally  done  its  work. 

But  all  men  are  not  yet  free.  The  gospel  of  liberty 
must  still  be  proclaimed  on  the  housetop  and  in  the 
market-place.  Paul  met  the  philosophers  in  the  market- 
place at  Athens.  He  did  not  hesitate  to  come  to  close 
grips  with  them.  He  likewise  joined  issue  with  human 
greed  and  love  of  power  over  other  men  in  the  case 
of  Onesimus.  He  did  not  shrink  from  the  issue,  and 
squarely  put  the  matter  up  to  Philemon.  Paul  was  a 
mystic  and  a  transcendentalist.  He  taught  other- 
worldliness  as  a  blessed  hope,  as  the  mainstay  of  the 
life  that  now  is.  But  Paul  was  a  practical  idealist. 
He  had  no  patience  with  putting  up  with  ills  that  could 
be  cured.  There  were  plenty  to  endure  that  were  be- 
yond relief.  Paul  was  a  social  reformer  who  cut  at 
the  root  of  current  abuses.  He  did  not  try  to  tear 
down  the  whole  structure  of  human  society  at  one 
blow.  He  preached  principles  that  would  inevitably 
make  a  heaven  out  of  earth  if  men  had  the  courage  to 
put  them  into  practice.  He  did  not  preach  a  kingdom 
of  heaven  that  concerned  only  the  future  life.  His 


PHILEMON  WITH  A  SOCIAL  PROBLEM    107 

real  citizenship  was  in  heaven  even  while  on  earth,  but 
this  conception  involved  living  on  earth  like  a  citizen 
of  heaven — member  of  a  colony  of  heaven  on  earth. 

In  the  end  slavery  has  gone  down  in  response  to 
Paul's  interpretation  of  the  gospel  of  Christ.  The  grip 
of  alcohol  is  likewise  now  loosened.  America  has  gone 
ahead  of  Britain  in  the  abolition  of  this  slavery  of  the 
soul  and  body.  Sex  prejudice  is  slowly  giving  way, 
more  rapidly  in  Britain  than  in  America.  Race  preju- 
dice is  still  alive  in  spite  of  the  League  of  Nations. 
The  great  war  has  not  slain  this  dragon  that  is  already 
again  raising  his  head  over  the  world. 

But  Christianity  cannot  shirk  the  issue.  It  is  in  the 
market-place.  It  is  in  the  midst  of  the  fight  to  rescue 
men  like  Onesimus  who  have  become  the  victims  of 
human  greed,  to  set  women  free  from  man's  lust,  to 
give  children  a  chance  to  grow  into  the  full  stature  of 
manhood  in  Christ  Jesus.  The  Letter  to  Philemon  is 
the  Magna  Charta  of  the  human  spirit.  The  only  real 
freedom  is  that  in  Christ.  When  the  Son  sets  us  free, 
we  are  free  in  reality,  free  to  do  right  to  other  men, 
free  to  fight  the  cause  of  liberty  for  all  nations,  for  all 
classes,  for  both  sexes.  The  foes  of  freedom  are  not 
dead,  but  liberty  is  winning  its  way.  The  star  of 
democracy  is  in  the  ascendant,  and  the  star  of  autocracy 
is  at  last  going  down  in  defeat.  The  world  cannot 
always  continue  half-slave  and  half-free. 


CHAPTER  VI 

STEPHEN  THE  PATHBREAKER  AND  THE 
MARTYR 

I.     AN  EPOCH-MARKING  MAN 

Stephen  does  not  cut  a  very  large  figure  in  the  book 
of  Acts.  His  story  comes  wholly  in  chapters  6  and  7, 
save  Paul's  allusion  to  him  in  22  :2O  as  "Stephen  thy 
witness"  (martyr),  "but  its  vital  importance  for  the 
history  is  obvious  from  the  pages  of  the  Acts"  (Rack- 
ham). 

He  stands  at  the  parting  of  the  ways  and  marks  a 
revolution  within  Jewish  Christianity.  His  speech 
is  the  longest  in  the  Acts  and  Luke  evidently  regarded 
him  as  the  true  transition  from  Peter  to  Paul.  He 
was  a  "new  man"  (Rackham)  and  so  well  suited  to 
an  era  of  reconstruction.  He  was  a  pioneer  of  prog- 
ress and,  as  is  often  the  case,  paid  the  penalty  for  his 
prophetic  insight  and  foresight  by  being  ahead  of  his 
age.  We  need  not  say  that  he  created  the  crisis  be- 
tween Christianity  and  Judaism,  for  that  was  inevit- 
able. But  he  precipitated  it  and  so  challenges  our 
interest  to-day. 

II.    A   MAN   OF   RARE   GIFTS   FOR  THE  EMERGENCY 

He  comes  into  the  story  in  a  rather  incidental  way 
as  one  of  the  Seven  who  were  chosen  to  "serve  tables" 
,  Acts  6:2)  so  that  the  twelve  might 

108 


STEPHEN— PATHBREAKER,  MARTYR    109 

devote  themselves  to  prayer  and  to  the  ministry  of  the 
word"  (TTJ  diaKovla  TOV  \6yov,  verse  4).  The  distribu- 
tion of  the  funds  for  the  poor  (chaps.  3  and  4)  had 
taken  too  much  of  the  time  of  the  apostles  who  had  to 
"leave  the  word"  (6:2)  "to  minister  to  tables." 

The  modern  minister  is  constantly  exposed  to  this 
very  temptation.  He  must  be  a  church,  denomina- 
tional, and  civic,  leader.  The  merely  administrative 
side  of  his  task  threatens  to  thrust  the  spiritual  and 
educational  to  one  side.  Paul  carried  the  balance  well 
as  missionary,  statesman,  evangelist,  teacher,  theo- 
logian, author,  pastor. 

Perhaps  the  twelve  might  not  have  felt  the  burden 
so  keenly  but  for  the  criticism  of  the  Hellenistic 
(Greek-speaking  Jews  from  without  Palestine)  Chris- 
tians that  the  Hellenistic  widows  were  discriminated 
against  in  the  distribution  of  the  common  funds.  One 
of  the  largest  givers  was  Barnabas,  Hellenist,  of 
Cyprus.  It  is  not  easy  to  allay  suspicion  of  that 
nature,  however  unjust.  The  twelve  adopted  the  bold 
plan  of  asking  the  church  to  choose  seven  men,  ap- 
proved by  the  church,  full  of  the  Holy  Spirit  and 
wisdom,  men  whom  the  whole  church  trusted. 

It  was  a  wise  solution  of  the  predicament.  It  seems 
likely,  though  not  certain,  that  "deacons"  grew  out  of 
this  arrangement.  There  is  no  mention  of  "elders" 
till  Acts  11:30.  Besides,  all  (or  nearly  all,  if  we 
judge  by  their  names)  of  the  Seven  were  Hellenists. 
Thus  the  Hellenists  must  now  judge  the  fairness  of  a 
Hellenistic  body,  not  of  an  Aramaean  body  like  the 
Twelve. 


110  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

First  of  the  Seven 

The  outstanding  man  in  the  list  of  seven  is  Stephen. 
Crown  (<TTe<f>avos)  is  the  meaning  of  his  name.  He 
won  the  martyr's  crown  and  wore  the  halo  of  glory 
from  the  face  of  Christ.  He  heads  the  list  as  "a  man 
full  of  faith  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit"  (6:5).  He  en- 
tered upon  his  work  "full  of  grace  and  power"  who  also 
"wrought  great  wonders  and  signs  among  the  people" 
(6:8). 

It  is 'plain  that  Stephen  was  like  Paul  in  the  com- 
bination of  the  mystic  and  the  practical.  He  was  a 
man  of  vision  who  brought  things  to  pass.  He  was 
a  poet  in  both  senses  of  the  word  (the  seer  and  the 
doer).  He  had  faith  and  grace  (trust  and  charm). 
He  had  wisdom  and  power.  Without  faith  one  can- 
not pierce  the  veil  of  the  future.  Without  grace  he 
cannot  win  followers.  Without  wisdom  he  cannot 
lucidly  project  his  vision  into  the  realm  of  the  prac- 
tical. Without  power  (dynamite,  Sfo/sa/us)  he  can- 
not drive  it  through  to  realisation.  Stephen  had 
all  these  powers  and  energies  and  the  gift  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  who  suffered  with  divine  afflatus  all  that 
he  did.  He  was  a  combination  of  the  practical  ideal- 
ism of  Woodrow  Wilson,  the  hardheadedness  of 
Clemenceau,  and  the  dynamic  energy  of  Lloyd  George. 
"We  have  the  story  of  but  one  day  in  his  life,  the 
last:  yet  there  is  no  man  in  the  New  Testament  of 
whom  we  are  told  so  much  without  one  blemish  being 
revealed"  (Furneaux). 

Stephen  furnishes  one  of  the  famous  "ifs"  of  his- 
tory. If  he  had  lived,  who  can  tell  what  his  career 


STEPHEN— PATHBREAKER,  MARTYR    111 

would  have  been?  Would  he  have  challenged  first 
place  with  Paul  as  the  heroic  pathfinder  for  Chris- 
tianity? Already  he  excelled  the  twelve  in  his  phi- 
losophic grasp  of  the  significance  of  the  Christian 
movement  in  its  bearing  on  Judaism. 

Stephen  belongs  to  the  long  list  of  gifted  young  men 
cut  off  in  the  prime  of  power  and  promise  like  Keats, 
like  Rupert  Brooke  and  many  another  genius  sacrificed 
in  the  plenitude  of  hope.  Stephen  wrought  miracles 
and  had  every  mark  of  the  seal  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
upon  his  work. 

III.      AN   IRRESISTIBLE   APOLOGIST   FOR   THE   FAITH 

He  cut  a  wide  swath  among  the  people  and  soon 
swept  beyond  the  office  for  which  he  was  chosen. 

If  Stephen  and  Philip  (the  evangelist,  as  he  be- 
came) are  types  for  modern  deacons,  some  of  them 
fall  far  short  of  their  opportunities.  The  average  dea- 
con takes  this  office  more  as  an  honour  than  as  a  call  to 
service.  It  must  be  remembered  that  all  the  early 
disciples  are  witnesses  for  Christ.  One  of  the  saddest 
misfortunes  in  Christian  history  is  the  officialism  that 
has  confined  soul-winning  so  largely  to  preachers,  some 
of  whom  do  not  know  how  to  do  that,  but  only  to 
deliver  sermons. 

Certainly  Stephen  did  not  feel  that  being  one  of 
the  Seven  cut  him  out  of  preaching  the  Word.  The 
rather  it  gave  him  a  fresh  prominence  and  a  new  leader- 
ship among  the  Hellenists  whose  representative  he 
was.  So  we  see  this  deacon  and  lay-preacher  busy  in 
the  Hellenistic  synagogues  of  Jerusalem. 

His  bold  and  powerful  proclamation  of  the  gospel 


112  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

of  grace  and  freedom  in  Christ  awakened  opposition 
in  these  synagogues.  Stephen  became  the  centre  of 
debate  as  the  champions  of  Judaism  challenged  his 
presentation  of  Christianity  and  Judaism,  "disputing 
with  Stephen"  (trw^Tj-rowTes  ^(j$  "Lrtipavu/) . 

It  was  exciting  work,  we  may  be  sure,  but  Stephen 
was  flushed  with  victory,  for  "they  were  not  able  to 
resist  the  wisdom  and  the  Spirit  with  which  he  spoke" 
6:10).  They  rose  up  quickly  (avkarijaav,  aorist  tense, 
ingressive  action),  but  they  had  not  strength  to  stand 
against  (owe  Iv-xyova.vTi.aTriva.i)  this  spiritual  tornado 
that  swept  down  all  in  his  path. 

A  New  Type  of  Preacher 

For  the  moment  Stephen,  not  Peter,  held  the  centre 
of  the  stage  in  Jerusalem.  Stephen  was  a  new  type 
of  preacher.  He  had  Hellenic  culture,  was  possibly  an 
Alexandrian,  and  was  able,  like  Apollos  and  Paul  after 
him,  to  give  a  philosophic  interpretation  of  Chris- 
tianity that  was  out  of  Peter's  range. 

There  is  no  evidence  that  the  twelve  felt  any  jeal- 
ousy of  Stephen  nor  was  there  opportunity  for  them 
to  come  to  his  help  at  his  trial.  They  themselves  had 
been  on  trial  before  the  same  Sanhedrin. 

Stephen  undoubtedly  alarmed  the  rabbis  by  the 
power  of  his  message.  Their  very  failure  to  answer 
"this  first  great  apologist  for  Christianity"  (Press, 
Int.  St.  "Bible  Encyclopaedia")  reminded  them  of  Jesus 
in  the  Temple  whose  destruction  he  foretold  on  Olivet. 
Stephen  dared  to  proclaim  the  perfect  equality  of  Jew 
and  Gentile  in  the  Kingdom  of  God  and  he  showed  the 


STEPHEN— PATHBREAKER,  MARTYR    113 

spiritual  nature  of  worship  as  Jesus  had  done  to  the 
woman  at  the  well  (John  4). 

Among  those  rabbis  who  rallied  to  the  defence  of 
Jewish  orthodoxy  was  probably  the  young  man  Saul, 
the  pride  of  Gamaliel  and  his  school.  In  the  Cilician 
synagogue  this  brilliant  young  rabbi  of  Tarsus  who 
had  led  all  his  fellow-students  in  Judaism  (Gal.  I  :i4) 
met  Stephen  and,  like  the  rest,  fell  before  the  might  of 
Stephen's  arguments. 

A  public  humiliation  is  hard  for  a  proud  man  to 
endure.  For  the  moment  Christianity  was  trium- 
phant unless  Stephen  could  be  gotten  out  of  the  way. 
The  people  were  with  Stephen.  Why  were  the  rabbis 
so  opposed  to  him? 

IV.      PROPHET  OF  THE  INEVITABLE  BREACH  BETWEEN 
CHRISTIANITY    AND    JUDAISM 

It  is  not  every  man  who  can  see  the  drift  of  a  new 
message  or  policy.  Most  people  run  in  ruts  until 
jolted  out  by  a  sudden  clash.  The  Pharisees  were 
quick  to  see  that  the  message  of  Jesus  meant  their  own 
undoing  if  his  theory  of  the  Kingdom  won  the  day. 
They  were  right  in  their  suspicion  toward  Jesus  as  an 
iconoclast  and  revolutionist  from  the  standpoint  of 
Pharisaic  traditionalism.  His  emphasis  on  spiritual 
reality  and  moral  righteousness  made  their  profes- 
sional and  pietistic  functions  seem  empty  and  hollow. 
At  bottom  the  Pharisees  killed  Jesus  for  his  picture  of 
their  own  theological  and  political  hopes. 

The  twelve  apostles  naturally  stressed  the  fact  that 
the  resurrection  of  Jesus  from  the  dead,  and  the  Sad- 
ducees  challenged  their  claim  with  energy  and  bitter 


TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

resentment.  Gamaliel  and  the  Pharisees  held  aloof  and 
apparently  enjoyed  the  predicament  of  the  Sadducees, 
their  hated  rivals  in  the  Sanhedrin. 

Struck  Out  on  a  New  Line 

But  Stephen  struck  out  on  a  new  line  and  showed 
how  Judaism  was  preparatory  for  Christianity  and 
was  temporary  and  would  pass  away.  His  Hellenic 
culture  undoubtedly  made  it  easier  for  Stephen  to  see 
the  true  relation  of  Judaism  and  Christianity  as  was 
true  also  with  Paul.  t  Peter  had  a  hard  struggle  to  see 
how  Gentiles  could  be  saved  without  first  becoming 
Jews,  though  he  did  see  it  after  Stephen's  death  (Acts 
10  and  n). 

But  there  is  enough  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus  to  ex- 
plain all  that  Stephen  said.  Jesus  had  explained  about 
the  new  patch  on  the  old  garment  and  new  wine  in  old 
bottles  to  show  that  Christianity  was  a  spiritual  revo- 
lution and  was  not  to  be  cribbed  and  cabined  by  the 
current  Judaism.  The  worship  of  God  is  spiritual 
whether  in  Jerusalem  or  on  Mt.  Gerizim  (John 
4:2off.).  Jesus  had  charged  Pharisaism  with  being 
hypocritical  formalism  at  variance  with  the  word  of 
God  (Mark  7:6)  and  had  predicted  the  destruction  of 
the  temple  (Mark  13:2)  and  the  passing  of  the  King- 
dom of  God  to  the  Gentiles  (Matt.  21:43). 

The  twelve  apostles  had  not  as  yet  seized  upon  this 
phase  of  Christ's  teaching.  But  Stephen  boldly  pro- 
claimed the  spiritual  nature  of  the  worship  of  God 
irrespective  of  nation  or  place.  He  did  it,  moreover, 
with  such  cogency  and  clarity  that  he  carried  the  Hel- 
lenists in  the  synagogue  with  him.  A  new  force  had 


STEPHEN— PATHBREAKER,  MARTYR    115 

to  be  reckoned  with  and  the  Pharisees  once  more 
sprang  to  the  rescue  of  the  ark  of  Judaism. 

Religious  Demagogy 

These  conscientious  inquisitors  and  persecutors  had 
the  zeal  of  fanatics  and  were  without  scruples  if  so 
be  they  could  compass  their  ends.  And  it  must  be 
noted  that  Hellenists  attacked  Stephen  with  the  same 
zeal  of  the  Palestinian  or  Aramaean  Jews.  Beaten  in 
debate  by  Stephen  his  opponents  "suborned  men"  who 
were  willing  to  perjure  themselves  for  pay  in  the  in- 
terest of  Jewish  orthodoxy.  "We  heard  him  speak 
blasphemous  words  against  Moses  and  God."  They 
twisted  his  interpretation  of  Christianity  in  terms  of 
mankind  to  be  a  direct  attack  on  Moses  who  is  here 
mentioned  before  God.  Moses  stood  for  all  the  Phar- 
isaic theology  and  they  "stirred  up  the  people  and  the 
elders  and  the  scribes"  by  the  charge  that  Stephen  was 
seeking  to  undermine  Judaism. 

It  is  not  hard  to  make  an  ad  captandum  plea  to 
the  populace.  Stephen  soon  found  himself  under 
arrest  for  heresy  and  arraigned  before  the  Sanhedrin. 
The  mob  had  rushed  at  him  in  their  rage  and  were  now 
ready  to  believe  false  witnesses  who  said,  "This  fellow 
does  not  cease  to  speak  words  against  this  holy  place 
and  the  law,  for  we  heard  him  say  that  Jesus,  this 
Nazarene,  will  destroy  this  place  and  will  change  the 
customs  that  Moses  delivered  unto  us"  (Acts  6:13). 

It  was  to  their  thinking  both  blasphemy  and  heresy. 
In  fact,  it  was  neither.  Stephen  was  the  true  inter- 
preter of  Moses  as  was  Jesus.  He  taught  the  real 
worship  of  God  in  the  spirit.  He  foresaw  the  inevit- 


116  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

able  disappearance  of  Judaism  before  Christianity  and 
in  a  prophetic  spirit  predicted  it.  But  Stephen  did  not 
deny  the  divine  origin  of  the  Mosaic  law;  he  did  not 
revile  the  temple.  But  Jewish  national  pride  was 
aroused  against  Stephen  by  the  specious  charge.  Piety 
and  patriotism  blazed  out  at  him.  What  could  he  say 
in  defence  of  his  attitude? 

V.    A    COURAGEOUS   INTERPRETER   OF    JEWISH    HISTORY 

It  was  Stephen's  supreme  hour.  He  felt  it  and  was 
looking  unto  Jesus  for  help.  We  read  of  none  of  the 
disciples  who  offered  sympathy  and  help  at  this  hour. 
They  may  have  been  cowed  into  silence.  Some  may 
have  thought  Stephen  too  bold  and  aggressive. 

But  a  strange  thing  happened.  The  people  gazed 
in  awe  at  the  face  of  Stephen  which  was  transfigured 
with  glory  like  that  of  Moses  when  he  came  down  from 
the  mount  when  he  had  been  talking  with  Jehovah. 

The  young  man  Saul  noticed  it  and  long  years  after- 
wards understood  what  it  meant  (2  Cor.  3:18). 
Stephen  saw  Jesus  and  the  glory  of  God  (Acts 
7:55)  and  his  very  face  shone  with  the  inward  peace 
and  light  that  radiated  with  a  halo,  as  if  his  face  were 
that  of  an  angel. 

Stephen  probably  thought  rapidly  as  he  recalled 
the  fate  of  Jesus  before  this  very  body  on  precisely 
similar  charges.  He  doubtless  knew  before  he  spoke 
what  his  fate  would  be.  Pilate  had  surrendered  to  the 
Sanhedrin  then,  and  there  was  small  hope  that  Roman 
power  would  intervene  in  behalf  of  Stephen  now.  All 
that  Stephen  could  do  was  to  speak  a  clear  and  true 
word  that  would  define  the  issue  for  which  he  was  to 


STEPHEN— PATHBREAKER,  MARTYR    117 

die.     Thus  he  might  do  much  by  dying  for  his  Lord 
and  for  the  freedom  of  the  human  spirit. 

A  Skilful  Argument 

His  apology  is  really  exceedingly  skilful  and  adroit 
though  at  first  one  is  surprised  that  the  charges  are 
not  directly  answered  and  the  name  of  Jesus  does  not 
occur.  But  his  address  does  answer  the  charges  com- 
pletely and  it  is  a  great  and  notable  defence  of  Christ. 
He  recounts  Jewish  history  from  Abraham  to  Solomon 
with  philosophic  grasp  and  spiritual  insight. 

He  holds  the  attention  of  these  rabid  Jews  as  he 
retells  the  familiar  and  wonderful  story.  But  he  gives 
a  fresh  turn  to  the  narrative  that  startles  while  it  en- 
thralls them.  He  shows  that  the  worship  of  God  in 
one  place  was  not  true  at  the  beginning,  and  was  tem- 
porary and  not  essential.  He  shows  how  the  people 
had  misunderstood  God's  hand  with  them  and  had 
killed  the  prophets,  who  were  called  to  interpret  His 
will  to  them.  Even  when  the  temple  came  "they  made 
external  worship  a  substitute  for  spiritual  obedience" 
(Furneaux). 

It  was  a  complete  justification  of  Christ  and  of 
Stephen's  exposition  of  the  gospel.  He  knew  his  Old 
Testament  like  an  Alexandrian  theologian  and  criti- 
cised materialistic  religion  like  a  Greek,  but  his  idea 
of  redemption  and  mediation  was  distinctly  Christian 
(Rackham). 

But  the  breath  of  the  hills  did  not  suit  Pharisaism. 
Stephen  saw  the  flash  of  anger  in  the  eyes  of  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Sanhedrin  as  they  saw  the  drift  of  his  great 
address  which  Luke  has  preserved  with  wonderful 


118  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

skill.  Stephen  had  not  won  his  judges,  though  he  had 
won  his  case  and  his  cause  before  God  and  men.  What 
must  he  now  do? 

VI.   THE  FIRST   MARTYR  FOR  CHRIST 

Stephen  was  not  afraid  to  reveal  the  Jews  to  them- 
selves. Jesus  had  done  the  same  thing  in  his  terrific 
denunciation  of  the  Pharisees  (Matt.  23).  They  were 
children  of  their  fathers.  They  have  killed  Jesus  as 
they  did  the  prophets  before  him.  He  spoke  in  pity 
while  his  words  burned  the  eyes  of  his  hearers  like 
Isaiah's  coals  of  fire. 

His  keen  irony  had  stung  them  to  the  quick.  His 
sarcasm  (Acts  7:50-53)  cut  to  the  bone  (Acts  7:54)  : 
"And  hearing  these  things  they  were  sawn  asunder 
in  their  hearts,  and  they  began  to  gnash 
their  teeth  at  him.  The  words  of  Stephen 
cut  like  a  buzz-saw  and  their  teeth  clattered  like  wolves 
for  their  victim. 

They  were  already  murderers  at  heart.  The  very 
truth  of  the  exposition  of  God's  purposes  of  grace 
angered  them  all  the  more,  when  at  last  they  saw  the 
point  of  his  speech. 

Stephen  saw  the  human  wolves  leap  up  at  him  as  he 
looked  up  to  heaven.  He  saw  the  glory  of  God  and 
Jesus  standing  at  the  right  hand  of  God  in  majesty  and 
glory,  standing  as  if  to  welcome  his  faithful  witness 
who  has  resisted  unto  blood. 

Stephen  is  rapt  with  the  glory  of  the  vision  and 
cares  not  for  his  murderers.  He  calmly  says,  "Behold, 
I  see  the  heavens  opened  and  the  Son  of  man  standing 
at  the  right  hand  of  God"  (Acts  7  156).  Jesus  saw  the 


STEPHEN— PATHBREAKER,  MARTYR    119 

heavens  as  he  came  up  out  of  the  baptismal  waters. 
Now  the  Son  of  man  stands  by  God's  throne  to  greet 
the  victor  in  his  death. 

It  is  a  glorious  transfiguration  and  intensifies  the 
rage  of  the  Jews.  They  lost  all  restraint.  The  San- 
hedrin  became  a  mob  and  with  loud  outcry  rushed  at 
Stephen  and  hurled  him  out  of  the  city  and  began  to 
stone  him  (  e\i0o/36Xow  ) . 

A  Common  Lynching 

They  were  observing  some  of  the  forms  of  Jewish 
law  at  any  rate  in  taking  him  out  of  the  city  and  in 
stoning  him  for  blasphemy.  But  all  the  same  it  was 
murder,  a  common  lynching.  No  vote  of  condemna- 
tion was  taken  and  the  Sanhedrin  no  longer  had  the 
power  of  life  and  death.  The  Romans  were  not  con- 
sulted. The  Jews  could  represent  it  as  an  uprising 
of  the  people  beyond  the  control  of  the  Sanhedrin 
so  that  the  Romans  would  let  it  pass. 

Stephen  is  called  "the  witness"  or  martyr  of  Jesus 
and  the  same  word  is  used  of  "the  witnesses"  (oi 
piaprupes,  Acts  7:58)  who  now  "laid  their  clothes 
at  the  feet  of  a  young  man  named  Saul,"  evidently 
the  master  of  ceremonies,  who  is  now  having  his 
revenge  on  Stephen  for  defeating  him  in  debate. 

These  "witnesses"  began  the  stoning  as  was  their 
privilege.  It  was  too  dirty  work  for  the  nice  young 
rabbi  from  Tarsus.  They  pelted  Stephen  as  he  gazed 
into  heaven  and  said :  "Lord  Jesus,  receive  my  spirit," 
as  if  glad  to  go.  Then,  bending  his  knees  in  spite  of 
the  rocks  hurled  at  him,  he  prayed  to  Jesus,  "Lord, 
lay  not  this  sin  to  their  charge"  (Acts  7:60). 


120  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

He  died  with  forgiveness  of  his  enemies  in  his 
heart,  this  first  martyr  for  Christ,  as  he  sealed  with 
his  blood  the  testimony  of  his  life.  Stephen  was  faith- 
ful to  the  death.  Was  his  witness  in  vain  ?  It  seemed 
so  at  the  time.  But  God's  plans  work  slowly,  but 
surely. 

VII.      THE   FORERUNNER   OF   PAUL 

"And  Saul  was  well-pleased  at  his  death"  (Acts 
8:1). 

There  was  little  of  cheer  to  the  Christians  in  this 
situation.  Besides,  Saul  at  once  set  about  to  root  out 
the  pestiferous  heresy  of  Christianity  from  Jerusalem. 
Like  a  wolf  he  ravished  the  fold  and  put  men  and 
women  to  death  and  drove  others  far  afield.  The 
taste  for  blood  grew  with  the  gratification,  and  Saul, 
like  a  war-horse,  sniffed  the  battle  as  far  as  Damascus. 

The  cause  of  Stephen  seemed  lost  and  that  of  Saul 
triumphant.  The  apostles  alone  were  left  in  Jerusa- 
lem, though  why  we  cannot  tell.  Was  it  that  the  friend- 
ship of  Gamaliel  still  shielded  them  from  the  wrath 
of  Saul,  his  pupil?  Did  their  failure  to  come  to  the 
rescue  of  Stephen  mollify  Saul?  Was  Saul  afraid  of 
the  twelve?  At  any  rate  the  cause  of  Christ  seemed 
almost  annihilated  as  Saul  swept  on  his  victorious 
career. 

And  yet,  when  Jesus  checked  Saul,  he  told  him  that 
it  was  hard  for  him  to  kick  against  the  goad.  Thus  we 
catch  a  light  on  these  days  of  vehement  victory  when 
Saul  fought  to  drown  his  own  conscience.  Stephen 
had  left  his  mark  upon  Saul.  Stephen,  not  Gamaliel, 
was  to  be  the  real  teacher  of  Saul. 

"Si  Stephanus  non   orasset,   ecclesia  Paulum  non 


STEPHEN— PATHBREAKER,  MARTYR 

habuisset"  So  vre  may  conclude.  At  any  rate  Saul, 
who  caused  Stephen's  death,  came  to  be  the  real  suc- 
cessor of  Stephen.  Saul  took  up,  expounded,  and  car- 
ried on  the  teaching  of  Stephen  about  the  universal 
message  and  mission  of  Christianity.  Saul  will  one 
day  meet  the  fierce  hatred  of  Jew  and  Judaiser  as  he 
fights  for  a  free  gospel  for  all  men.  Stephen  is  vin- 
dicated in  Paul. 

Thus  God  wrought  His  will  in  spite  of  the  wrath 
of  man.  Paul  himself  one  day  won  the  martyr's 
crown  (ffTf<f>avos) .  No  one,  we  may  be  sure,  gave 
Paul  a  warmer  welcome  to  heaven  than  Stephen, 
who  could  justly  claim  Paul  as  his  trophy  for  Christ. 


CHAPTER  VII 

LYDIA  THE  PREACHER'S  FRIEND  AND 
HELPER 

There  are  few  characters  in  the  New  Testament 
more  attractive  than  Lydia,  of  Philippi.  Luke  has 
drawn  her  portrait  with  wonderful  clearness  in  Acts 
1 6.  She  is  not  mentioned  elsewhere.  A  number  of 
points  stand  out  very  definitely. 

I.      A    PROGRESSIVE   WOMAN    OF    BUSINESS 

There  is  a  curious  modernness  about  Lydia,  of 
Thyatira,  seller  of  purple  in  Philippi  (Acts  16:14). 

Strabo  calls  Thyatira  a  Mysian  town,  but  Ptolemy 
locates  it  in  Lydia.  It  was  on  the  border  of  Mysia,  but 
in  Lydia,  and  was  included  by  the  Romans  in  the 
province  of  Asia.  It  was  a  flourishing  trade  center, 
though  surpassed  by  Ephesus,  Smyrna  and  Pergamos. 
It  is  one  of  the  cities  addressed  in  Revelation  (2:18- 
29).  There  were  numerous  guilds  like  the  clothiers, 
braziers  and  dyers.  Lydia  evidently  belonged  to  the 
guild  of  dyers  in  Thyatira  as  "a  seller  of  purple." 

Purple  was  the  color  of  the  official  stripe  on  the 
Roman  togas  worn  at  Rome  and  in  the  colonies.  Thy- 
atira was  chiefly  famous  for  the  fine  purple  cloth  manu- 
factured there.  The  country  of  Lydia  was  the  richest 
and  most  prosperous  in  Western  Asia  Minor. 

It  seems  clear  that  Lydia  was  a  woman  of  means  to 

122 


LYDIA,  FRIEND  AND  HELPER 

be  able  to  deal  in  this  expensive  clothing.  The  very 
term  "royal  purple"  is  suggested  by  her  business.  It 
is  not  clear  whether  Lydia  is  her  real  name  or  merely 
"the  Lydian"  to  the  people  of  Philippi.  Horace  em- 
ploys the  name  for  Roman  women  and  finally  at  any 
rate  in  Philippi  she  was  called  Lydia. 

She  is  not  mentioned  in  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Philip- 
pians.  She  may  have  returned  to  Thyatira  or  she  may 
have  been  dead  by  then.  It  is  .suggested  that  Paul 
refers  to  her  under  the  name  Euodia  or  Syntyche 
(Phil.  4:2).  Renan  has  even  argued  that  she  was 
Paul's  wife  and  is  addressed  in  Philippians  4:3,  "true 
yokefellow!"  But  that  carries  one  very  far  afield 
in  the  realm  of  mere  speculation. 

Since  she  had  abundant  means,  it  is  quite  possible 
that  she  could  have  met  the  expenses  of  Paul's  first 
trial  in  Rome  unless,  as  Ramsay  thinks,  Paul  had  come 
into  possession  of  his  father's  patrimony.  We  are  to 
think,  then,  of  Lydia  at  the  head  of  a  large  establish- 
ment that  employed  many  women,  (cf.  Acts  16:13). 

Philippin,  like  other  cities  in  Macedonia  (Beroea, 
Thessalonica),  allowed  more  freedom  to  women  than 
they  enjoyed  in  Athens,  Corinth  or  Ephesus  (cf.  Ram- 
say, "St.  Paul  the  Traveller  and  Roman  Citizen,"  pp. 
224,  227,  232).  Macedonian  inscriptions  show  that 
women  enjoyed  higher  social -position  and  considerable 
freedom.  In  Thessalonica  (modern  Saloniki)  Paul 
won  "of  the  chief  women  not  a  few"  (Acts  17:4)  and 
in  Beroea  many  "of  the  Greek  women  of  honourable 
estate"  (Acts  17:12).  It  is  quite  appropriate  there- 
fore, now  that  women  have  won  citizenship  in  Britain 
and  in  America  at  last,  to  note  their  activity 


TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

in  Macedonia.     In  the  recent  war  Lydia  would  have 
been  at  home  and  a  leader  beyond  a  doubt. 

She  was  not  discounted  in  Philippi  because  she  had 
a  trade.  Indeed,  we  may  see  the  day  when  the  idle 
woman  is  the  one  to  be  pitied  and  who  has  to  apologize 
for  her  idleness.  The  chief  business  woman  of  the 
world  is  the  one  who  manages  her  home  successfully 
and  within  her  husband's  income,  especially  if  he  hap- 
pens to  be  a  preacher.  She  is  the  excellent  woman  of 
Proverbs  3 1 : 

"Her  clothing  is  fine  linen  and  purple. 
Her  husband  is  known  in  the  gates." 

It  is  not  known  whether  Lydia  was  married  or  not. 
If  so,  she  was  probably  a  widow.  But  certainly  her 
husband  would  have  said  of  her : 

"Many  daughters  have  done  worthily, 
But  thou  excellest  them  all." 

II.  A  ZEALOUS  PROSELYTE  OF  THE  GATE 

She  was  "one  that  worshipped  God"  (Acts  16:14). 

This  is  the  technical  description  of  the  "God-fearers" 
or  proselytes  of  the  gate,  as  the  later  rabbinic  lan- 
guage has  it.  Cornelius  is  so  described  (Acts  10:2, 
22).  See  also  Acts  13  :i6,  26,  50,  etc.  They  stood  at 
the  gate,  but  had  not  formally  entered  into  Judaism 
by  the  rite  of  circumcision.  They  were  no  longer 
polytheists,  but  were  devout  worshippers  of  the  one 
true  God.  They  attended  the  synagogue  worship  and 
contributed  liberally  to  its  support.  And  yet  they 
ranked  not  technically  as  Jews  in  all  ceremonial  mat- 
ters, for  they  had  not  taken  the  final  step.  So  Peter 


LYDIA,  FRIEND  AND  HELPER        125 

apologizes  for  entering  the  house  of  Cornelius  (Acts 
10:28). 

It  is  from  these  "God-fearers"  that  Paul  usually 
wins  his  first  converts  from  the  Gentiles.  So  it  is 
in  Philippi.  His  first  convert  in  Europe  is  a  woman 
and  a  proselyte  of  the  gate. 

Lydia  may  have  become  interested  in  Judaism  in 
Thyatira,  for  there  was  a  large  Jewish  colony  there. 
The  cult  of  Cybele  flourished  among  the  heathen  in 
Thyatira  and  this  voluptuous  nature-worship  led  to 
much  immorality.  There,  as  elsewhere,  the  higher 
type  of  the  heathen  turned  to  Judaism  for  help  in  the 
world  of  darkness  about  them.  Certainly  Lydia  was 
earnest  in  her  interest  in  Judaism,  since  she  and  her 
group  of  women  went  all  the  way  from  Philippi  to 
the  river-side  (the  Gangas  or  Gangites)  some  miles 
away  in  order  to  worship  God  in  the  "place  of  prayer." 
This  term  is  sometimes  used  for  the  synagogue  and 
then  again  for  any  house  or  place  when  prayer  is 
offered  (3  Mace.  7:20).  It  is  not  possible  to  decide 
how  it  is  employed  here,  though  it  may  be  noted  that 
Luke  has  synagogue  elsewhere  as  in  Acts  17:1. 

The  location  of  the  place  of  prayer  so  far  from  the 
city  suggests  that  the  Jews  were  a  small  group  in 
Philippi.  In  Thessalonica  they  are  a  powerful  body 
for  it  was  a  great  commercial  city.  Philippi  was  a 
Roman  colony  and  a  sort  of  military  outpost. 

The  river  was  convenient  for  the  ceremonial  ablu- 
tions of  the  Jews.  But  the  point  to  note  about  Lydia 
is  that  she  took  the  trouble  to  go  to  this  out-of-town 
place  of  prayer  to  worship  God  with  a  small  body  of 
Jews.  There  were  plenty  of  excuses  that  she  could 


126  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

have  found  for  not  going  whether  she  walked  or  rode 
a  donkey.  But  she  went.  In  these  days  of  slackness 
about  attendance  at  public  worship  the  example  of 
Lydia,  the  proselyte  of  the  gate,  is  quite  pertinent. 

We  are  not  surprised  to  find  that  Paul  and  his  com- 
pany went  out  there,  even  though  it  was  not  certain 
that  there  was  a  place  of  prayer  in  that  locality.  They 
"supposed"  it  to  be  there  (Acts  16:13)  and  went  on 
in  the  hope  of  finding  it. 

III.  LISTENING  TO  THE  TRAVELLING  JEWISH  PREACHER 

We  do  not  know  what  it  was  that  caught  Lydia's 
attention  in  Paul's  message.  It  was  a  common  thing 
in  the  synagogues  for  the  Jewish  stranger  present  to 
be  given  an  opportunity  to  speak  a  word  of  exhorta- 
tion. At  Antioch,  in  Pisidia,  "after  the  reading  of  the 
law  and  the  prophets  the  rulers  of  the  synagogue  sent 
unto  them  (Paul  and  Barnabas),  saying,  brethren,  if 
ye  have  any  word  of  exhortation  for  the  people,  say 
on."  There  by  the  river-side  at  the  place  of  prayer  no 
such  formality  may  have  been  observed. 

The  fact  that  only  women  are  mentioned  in  attend- 
ance seems  to  imply  that  it  was  not  a  real  synagogue 
out  here  by  the  river,  but  only  a  place  for  prayer  and 
ceremonial  ablutions.  Philippi  was  a  Latin  town  and 
few  Jews  were  there.  The  rabbinical  rule  was  that 
ten  men  were  necessary  to  form  a  synagogue. 

It  looked  like  a  poor  opportunity  for  the  great 
apostle  to  the  Gentiles  to  make  a  beginning  for  the 
conquest  of  Europe.  He  had  responded  to  the  Mace- 
donian cry  and  found  no  opening  in  Philippi  at  all. 
And  there  seemed  to  be  small  promise  here.  Some  men 


LYDIA,  FRIEND  AND  HELPER          107 

would  have  returned  to  Philippi  without  preaching  to 
this  handful  of  Jewish  women,  some  of  them 
proselytes.  Indeed,  it  is  likely  that  it  was  more  con- 
versation than  public  address,  for  Luke  says,  "We  sat 
down  and  spoke"  (imperfect  tense). 

Perhaps  each  of  the  four  (Paul,  Silas,  Timothy, 
Luke)  engaged  in  conversation  with  a  separate  woman. 
Paul  spoke  to  Lydia  and  by  and  by  all  may  have  lis- 
tened. I  heard  D.  L.  Moody  say  that  he  knew  of  more 
souls  saved  by  his  conversation  than  by  his  preaching. 
One  recalls  Jesus  and  Nicodemus,  and  Jesus  and  the 
Samaritan  woman  at  Jacob's  well.  It  is  more  spectacu- 
lar to  deliver  a  public  address  and  this  has  to  be  done. 
But  it  should  never  be  above  the  will  of  the  greatest 
preacher  to  talk  to  a  single  person  about  his  salvation. 

Lydia  was  at  once  interested  in  what  Paul  had  to 
say.  She  kept  on  listening  (imperfect  tense).  Paul 
was  no  doubt  eager  to  win  this  woman  to  Christ.  He 
did  not  feel  that  it  was  a  small  beginning.  Mission- 
aries to-day  have  to  start  their  work  in  just  this  way. 
One  wins  one.  And  Lydia  was  eager  to  hear  it  all. 

iv.     LYDIA'S  HEART  OPENED 

"Whose  heart  the  Lord  opened  to  give  heed  unto  the 
things  which  were  spoken  by  Paul."  Paul  soon  saw 
that  Lydia  was  deeply  concerned  in  what  he  was  say- 
ing. That  is  what  stirs  a  preacher  most,  when  he  sees 
a  soul  responding  to  the  word  of  God. 

Luke  says  that  "the  Lord  opened"  Lydia' s  heart. 
That  is  God's  part.  But  Lydia  listened  and  gave  heed. 
She  did  her  part  and  gave  the  word  of  God  a  chance 
to  do  its  work.  It  is  certain  that  more  people  would 


128  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

have  their  hearts  opened  if  they  listened  attentively 
to  the  message.  It  is  a  hard  thing  for  most  people  to 
concentrate  their  minds  upon  a  given  proposition  for 
a  half  hour  or  so.  Few  are  willing  to  face  squarely 
and  frankly  for  one  hour  their  personal  relations  to 
God. 

It  is  a  solemn  thing  to  have  to  deal  with  a  soul  in 
such  a  plastic  moment.  A  false  note  may  repel  the 
inquirer.  The  preacher  must  become  a  fisher  of  men. 
He  must  know  how  to  draw  the  soul  to  Christ.  We 
need  not  worry  for  fear  that  the  Lord  will  not  open 
the  heart  of  the  seeker  after  light.  That  is  God's  task 
and  responsibility.  Let  us  be  sure  that  we  do  our  full 
duty  in  making  the  way  plain  and  in  making  Christ 
attractive  to  sinners. 

It  is  not  clear  that  Lydia  was  converted  on  this  first 
visit  of  Paul  to  the  place  of  prayer,  though  that  was 
likely  the  case. 

Paul  had  this  ground  of  joy,  he  had  won  Lydia  to 
Christ,  but  he  did  not  know  what  a  prize  he  had  cap- 
tured. She  was  a  prophecy  of  the  great  army  of  noble 
women  through  the  ages  who  would  rally  to  the  stand- 
ard of  Jesus  in  Europe  and  in  America.  Jesus  was  to 
set  the  women  of  the  world  free  in  due  time.  It  was  an 
historic  occasion  when  Lydia  gave  her  heart  to  Christ. 
Woman  «can  never  repay  the  debt  that  she  owes  to 
Christ. 

V.   FOLLOWING  HER  LORD  IN  BAPTISM 

Evidently  Paul  had  spoken  of  baptism  as  the  next 
step  after  conversion.  Paul  did  not  make  baptism 
essential  to  salvation.  He  was  not  a  sacramentarian  as 
is  plain  from  i  Corinthians  1:17:  "For  Christ  sent 


LYDIA,  FRIEND  AND  HELPER         129 

me  not  to  baptise,  but  to  preach  the  gospel."  And  yet 
Paul  did  not  belittle  baptism  as  of  no  significance.  He 
found  in  it  a  picture  of  the  heart  of  the  gospel :  "We 
were  buried  with  him  through  baptism  into  death" 
(Rom.  6:4).  So  Lydia  gladly  submitted  to  this  ordi- 
nance that  in  a  mystic  sense  proclaimed  death  to  sin  and 
resurrection  to  the  new  life  in  Christ. 

Probably  Paul  himself  baptised  her,  though  his 
rule  was  to  leave  the  baptising  to  others  (i  Cor.  I  :i6). 
There  was  apparently  little  delay  on  the  part  of  Lydia. 
As  yet  no  church  seems  to  have  been  organized  in 
Philippi,  but  that  came  soon. 

VI.    LEADING   HER   HOUSEHOLD   WITH    HER 

Lydia's  "household"  was  baptised  also.  That  was 
true  of  the  household  of  Cornelius  (Acts  10:44,  47 J 
11:14),  of  the  jailer  (Acts  16:34),  of  Stephanas 
(i  Cor.  i  :i6),  and  of  Crispus  (Acts  18:8). 

In  the  case  of  Lydia  it  is  not  clear  whether  she  was 
married  or  not.  The  word  for  "household"  may  mean 
her  servants  or  workwomen.  Euodia  and  Syntyche 
may  have  been  in  the  number.  But  it  is  certain  that  this 
noble  woman  exerted  her  influence  to  bring  her  house- 
hold, whether  children,  domestics,  or  employees  in  her 
business,  to  the  service  of  Jesus  Christ.  She  set  an 
example  for  all  parents  in  the  home  life  to  lead  chil- 
dren and  servants  to  Christ.  She  is  a  rebuke  to  all 
heads  of  business  establishments  who  are  afraid  to 
take  a  positive  stand  for  Christ. 

It  is  much  easier  to  make  a  contribution  for  mission 
work  somewhere  else  than  it  is  to  do  the  work  that 
lies  right  before  one's  eyes.  We  are  prone  to  be 


130  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

cowardly  before  our  own  children  and  to  be  silent 
about  the  life  in  Christ  before  those  who  work  in  our 
homes,  our  store,  our  factories,  or  on  our  farms. 
There  is  no  better  way  to  spread  the  power  of  Christ 
than  just  this  personal  work  with  those  near  and  dear 
to  us.  If  we  take  Christ  into  our  hearts,  we  should 
take  him  into  our  homes,  and  into  our  places  of  busi- 
ness. In  the  army  religion  has  come  to  the  front  to 
help  the  morale  of  the  men  who  fight.  None  the  less 
do  jwe  need  Christ  in  the  quieter  times  of  peace. 

VII.      THE   GRACE   OF   HOSPITALITY 

"If  ye  have  judged  me  to  be  faithful  to  the  Lord, 
come  into  my  house  and  abide  there"  (Acts  16:15). 
Lydia  was  anxious  to  prove  the  sincerity  of  her  con- 
version, as  every  new  convert  ought  to  feel.  Grati- 
tude to  Christ  prompts  one  to  do  something  for  His 
cause.  The  time  to  take  up  the  work  is  at  once.  Those 
who  put  it  off  may  drop  back  and  then  drop  out.  Lydia 
saw  this  much  that  she  could  do  at  once.  She  had 
wealth  and  a  comfortable  home.  She  probably  had 
servants  to  attend  to  the  wants  of  her  guests.  So  she 
"besought  us,"  Luke  says,  to  come  and  to  make  her 
home  their  home. 

She  wanted  all  four  of  them.  Hospitality  is  one  of 
the  finest  Christian  graces.  It  is  commended  and  urged 
in  the  New  Testament.  It  is  not  possible  for  all  to 
do  as  much  as  Lydia  in  this  respect.  But  hospitality 
brings  rich  reward  to  those  who  can  exercise  it.  Many 
have  entertained  angels  unawares.  The  sweetest 
memories  in  many  homes  linger  about  the  visits  of 
saints  of  God.  The  children  carry  with  them  through 


LYDIA,  FRIEND  AND  HELPER         131 

life  the  impress  of  these  visiting  angels  who  show  the 
courtesy  of  Christ.  Many  of  the  best  homes  in  the 
world  swing  open  to  those  who  are  the  servants  of 
Jesus. 

It  is  evident  that  Paul  was  reluctant  to  accept  the 
invitation  of  Lydia.  There  were  four  of  the  party 
and  they  would  probably  be  in  Philippi  for  some  time. 
Paul  was  the  most  independent  of  men.  He  was  the 
last  man  in  the  world  to  impose  upon  the  generosity 
of  others.  He  knew  how  to  make  his  living  so  as  to  be 
free,  as  he  did  in  Thessalonica,  shortly  afterward 
(2  Thess.  3:8).  But  Lydia  was  in  earnest  and  she 
would  take  no  refusal,  especially  on  grounds  like  those 
just  mentioned.  "She  constrained  us,"  Luke  says. 
Literally,  "she  forced  us"  to  accept.  She  had  her  way 
in  this  matter,  as  she  probably  did  in  most  things,  for 
she  had  the  gift  of  leadership. 

Paul  and  his  party  were  now  in  luxury.  They  richly 
deserved  this  generous  treatment  and  they  greatly  en- 
joyed the  charm  of  Lydia's  home.  Paul  and  Silas 
were  soon  to  be  thrown  into  prison  in  Philippi.  Paul 
knew  what  rough  handling  was,  for  at  Lystra  he  had 
been  stoned  and  left  for  dead.  Blessings  on  Lydia  for 
giving  some  of  the  comforts  of  life  to  these  servants 
of  the  Lord  Jesus. 

VIII.  THE  CHURCH  IN  HER  HOUSE 

"And  they  went  out  of  the  prison,  and  entered  into 
the  house  of  Lydia;  and  when  they  had  seen  the 
brethren,  they  comforted  them,  and  departed"  (Acts 
16:40). 

It  is  plain  that  the  brethren  and  sisters,  now  a  church 


132  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

apparently,  had  met  in  Lydia's  house  during  the 
time  of  the  arrest  of  Paul  and  Silas.  So  in  Jerusalem 
the  home  of  Mary,  mother  of  John  Mark,  had  been 
the  place  of  meeting  as  the  saints  prayed  for  Peter's 
release.  It  came  to  be  a  common  thing  for  the  be- 
lievers to  meet  in  the  house  of  one  who  had  a  home 
capacious  enough  for  that  purpose.  Lydia  made  her 
home  the  centre  of  Christian  influence  in  Philippi. 

When  Christ  comes  into  the  home,  some  other  things 
go  out.  That  is  one  reason  that  some  do  not  wish 
Him  to  come  in.  Family  worship  is  a  blessing  to  the 
home.  Lydia  became  the  dominant  spirit  in  this 
new  church  in  Philippi. 

IX.   THE  CHURCH   THAT   CHEERED   PAUL 

Paul  had  much  to  try  him  in  the  churches  that  he 
founded  as  in  Galatia  and  in  Corinth.  But  the  church 
in  Philippi  was  the  first  that  contributed  to  his  mis- 
sionary work  and  the  most  generous  of  all  (Phil. 
4:10-20).  This  was  probably  due  to  the  enlightened 
liberality  of  Lydia.  She  had  means,  it  is  true.  But 
not  all  Christians  who  have  money  have  also  the  grace 
of  liberality. 

Lydia  led  the  church  out  of  the  narrow  selfishness 
that  claimed  so  many.  The  story  of  Lydia  has  been 
repeated  in  the  life  of  many  churches  since  her  time. 
Each  of  us  can  recall  instances  when  the  very  life  of 
the  church  turned  upon  the  zeal  of  one  woman.  The 
men  are  hardened  by  love  of  money.  The  women  are 
indifferent  through  love  of  worldly  pleasures.  One 
woman  may  have  the  insight  and  the  courage  to  press 
on  for  higher  things.  In  time  the  church  will  come  to 


LYDIA,  FRIEND  AND  HELPER         133 

her  ideals.  Such  a  woman  is  the  pastor's  joy  and  hope. 
Lydia  was  a  promise  of  the  great  harvest  that  lay 
before  Paul.  Her  noble  spirit  brightened  his  heart 
through  dark  days  that  were  ahead.  To  be  sure, 
Luke  remained  in  Philippi  several  years.  These  two 
staunch  friends  of  Paul  moulded  this  church  into  a 
great  missionary  dynamo. 


CHAPTER  VIII 
SILAS  THE  COMRADE 

Our  information  about  Silas  or  Silvanus  (the 
longer  form  in  the  Epistles — I  Thess.  I  :i ;  2  Thess. 
I  :i ;  2  Cor.  1:19;  i  Pet.  5:12),  is  not  extensive  and 
yet  it  is  possible  to  get  a  pretty  clear  picture  of  him 
by  piecing  together  the  hints  here  and  there  in  the  Acts 
and  the  Epistles. 

I.   A   HELLENIST  AND  A  ROMAN   CITIZEN 

In  these  two  respects  he  was  like  Paul.  It  seems 
clear  from  Acts  16:37,  "being  Romans,"  that  Silas  as 
well  as  Paul  was  a  citizen  of  Rome.  He  also,  like 
Paul,  had  a  Latin  name  (Silvanus)  and  was  evidently 
a  Hellenist  while  Judas  Barsabbas  (Acts  15:22)  was 
an  Aramaean  Jew,  possibly  brother  of  the  Joseph  Bar- 
sabbas of  Acts  i  :23.  It  has  been  argued  that  2  Cor- 
inthians 1:19  and  8:23  make  possible  the  identifica- 
tion of  Silas  with  Titus.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
picture  of  Titus  in  Galatians  2  :3  is  quite  out  of  keep- 
ing with  that  in  Acts  15  (Knowling).  In  Galatians 
2  :3  Titus  is  a  Greek,  while  in  Acts  1 5  Silas  is  a  mes- 
senger from  the  Jerusalem  church  and  one  of  their 
leaders.  The  suggestion  that  Silas  is  the  author  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  pure  hypothesis  with  no  con- 
vincing proof. 

134 


SILAS  THE  COMRADE  135 

II.    A   JERUSALEM    LEADER 

He  is  described  along  with  Judas  Barsabas  as  "lead- 
ing men  among  the  brethren"  (Acts  15:22).  The 
word  ( rivovntvos )  is  a  favorite  one  with  Luke  (Luke 
22:26;  Acts  7:10;  14:12),  but  does  not  specify  the 
office  or  rank  of  Silas.  He  was  one  of  the  chief  men 
and  stood  in  the  forefront  when  we  first  meet  him  in 
the  Acts.  He  was  apparently  one  of  the  elders  of  the 
church  in  Jerusalem.  He  is  not  mentioned  by  name 
in  the  discussions  of  the  conference,  though  it  is  more 
than  likely  that  he  was  present  during  the  private  con- 
ference called  by  Paul  (Gal.  2  :i-io),  and  he  may  have 
spoken  in  the  public  debate  afterwards  (Acts  15  :7). 

He  was  a  man  beyond  a  doubt  who  enjoyed  the 
confidence  of  the  Jerusalem  church,  of  Paul  and  Barna- 
bas, and  of  the  church  in  Antioch.  He  was  clearly 
not  a  Judaiser.  As  a  Hellenist  he  belonged  to  the 
more  liberal  wing  of  the  Jewish  Christians  like  Paul 
and  Barnabas,  while  Judas  Barsabbas  probably  repre- 
sented the  more  conservative  element  of  Aramaean 
Christians  under  the  lead  of  Peter,  James,  and  John. 
Both  sides  were  now  united  against  the  Judaisers  and 
both  sides  were  represented  in  the  two  ambassadors 
entrusted  with  the  important  letter  to  Antioch.  It  is 
a  letter  of  commendation  (Acts  15:27),  probably 
written  by  James,  like  that  carried  by  Saul  from  the 
Sanhedrin  (Acts  9:2),  and  left  matters  of  detail  to 
be  explained  by  Judas  and  Silas.  The  two  commis- 
sioners are  trusted  ambassadors  able  to  expound  the 
will  of  the  conference  concerning  the  problem  of  Gen- 
tile freedom.  The  mission  is  a  delicate  and  important 
one  as  this  first  Christian  Epistle  preserved  to  us 


136  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

shows,  unless  the  Epistle  of  James  antedates  the  con- 
ference. It  is  plain  that  Silas  is  a  man  of  such  parts 
and  standing  that  his  appointment  gives  satisfaction 
all  around.  Judas  and  Silas  are  qualified  to  interpret 
the  Epistle  (Acts  15:27). 

III.  A   PROPHET  IN  ANTIOCH 

The  ambassadors  fulfilled  their  function  with  emi- 
nent skill  (Acts  15:30-33).  They  delivered  the 
epistle  to  the  new  council  (Rackham)  assembled  at 
Antioch.  The  letter  was  read  aloud  to  the  Greek 
multitude  confirming  their  freedom  from  the  Mosaic 
ceremonial  law,  though  with  proper  emphasis  on  the 
moral  code  and  with  due  recognition  of  the  fact  that 
Jewish  Christians  had  perfect  liberty  to  keep  up  the 
Mosaic  ceremonial  rules  if  they  wished.  The  decision 
gave  perfect  liberty  to  the  Gentile  Christians,  but  left 
an  occasion  for  further  irritation  between  the  Jewish 
and  Gentile  Christians  in  their  social  relations. 

But  the  decree  was  wise  in  its  caution  and  was  still 
in  force  when  Paul  came  to  Jerusalem  the  last  time, 
though  Paul  himself  saw  that  only  love,  not  knowledge 
and  not  law,  could  regulate  the  relation  of  Christians 
with  each  other  (i  Cor.  8-10;  Rom.  14  and  15). 
Finally,  the  author  of  Hebrews  will  call  upon  Jewish 
Christians  to  come  clean  out  of  the  camp  of  Judaism 
and  take  their  stand  beside  the  Gentile  Christians 
(Heb.  8-13).  But  now  the  Gentiles  at  Antioch  are 
overjoyed  at  the  confirmation  of  their  own  freedom; 
so  they  heard  Judas  and  Silas  with  great  delight  as 
their  "prophets,"  "exhorted  the  brethren  with  many 
words  and  strengthened  them." 


SILAS  THE  COMRADE  137 

It  was  a  new  day  for  Christianity.  The  shadow  of 
Pharisaism  that  had  gathered  over  the  Gentile  churches 
was  now  removed.  Silas  evidently  spoke  with  the 
prophetic  spirit  and  encouraged  and  strengthened  the 
spirits  of  the  brethren.  It  was  a  crisis  that  called  for 
courage  and  wisdom.  If  the  Judaisers  had  wone, 
Christianity  among  the  Gentiles  would  have  dried  up 
to  a  hardened  type  of  Pharisaism  or  would  have 
sloughed  off  from  the  Jewish  trunk.  But  now  the 
way  for  progress  was  open,  but  it  called  for  prudence 
and  restraint  on  the  part  of  the  Gentile  Christians  not 
to  irritate  the  Jewish  Christians  needlessly. 

It  is  to  the  credit  of  Silas  and  Judas  that  they  en- 
tered heartily  into  the  celebration  of  the  Gentile  vic- 
tory at  Antioch  and  remained  long  enough  for  them 
to  know  that  the  triumph  was  secure.  There  was 
prophecy  and  exhortation  in  Antioch  as  when  Barnabas 
came  from  Jerusalem  in  the  beginning  (Acts  11:27, 
28).  Silas  and  Judas  made  "an  earnest  appeal  for 
unity  and  mutual  charity"  (Rackham).  The  Bezan 
text  in  15:34  says,  "But  it  seemed  good  unto  Silas 
to  abide  there  and  Judas  returned  alone."  This  is  prob- 
ably an  effort  to  explain  how  Silas  was  later  with 
Paul  in  Antioch  (Acts  15:40).  It  is  easy  enough  to 
understand  that  Silas  came  back  to  Antioch  after  the 
formal  report  to  the  Jerusalem  church.  There  was 
time  enough  for  this  return  in  the  "some  days"  of 
verse  36.  Peace  had  come  to  the  church  at  Antioch 
and  Silas  had  been  the  bearer  of  glorious  news.  The 
gift  of  New  Testament  prophecy  does  not  mean  always 
technical  prediction,  though  that  was  true  of  the 
prophet  Agabus  at  Caesar ea  (Acts  21  :io,  n).  In  the 


138  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

case  of  Silas  and  Judas  it  is  rather  the  gift  of  unctuous 
address  under  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  men 
endowed  with  the  power  of  speaking  the  mind  of  the 
Spirit.  The  highest  form  of  preaching  may  rise  to 
the  level  of  prophecy.  Clearly  Silas  was  a  man  of 
mark  and  a  man  of  destiny. 

IV.      THE  CHOICE  OF  PAUL  FOR   HIS  MISSION   WORK 

It  was  a  shock  to  Paul  and  a  blow  to  his  hopes  and 
plans  when  Barnabas  pulled  away  from  him  and  went 
to  Cyprus  with  John  Mark.  Barnabas  had  been  Paul's 
friend  in  the  hour  of  need.  He  had  befriended  him 
in  Jerusalem  after  his  conversion  when  the  rest  eyed 
him  with  suspicion  and  distrust.  He  had  brought  him 
from  Tarsus  to  Antioch  when  the  work  there  called 
for  another  worker.  He  had  stood  by  Paul  when  the 
leadership  in  the  mission  enterprise  passed  to  his  hands 
with  no  thought  of  jealousy.  He  had  zealously  cham- 
pioned Paul's  fight  for  Gentile  freedom  in  Antioch 
and  in  Jerusalem.  In  Jerusalem  it  was  still  "Barnabas 
and  Paul"  (Acts  15:25).  But  he  would  not  stand 
for  the  abrupt  brushing  aside  of  John  Mark  because  of 
his  mistake  at  Perga.  So  the  rift  widened  between 
these  two  servants  of  Christ.  "Even  Barnabas"  had 
been  led  away  from  Paul  at  Antioch  by  Peter  and 
probably  John  Mark  (Gal.  2:13).  That  Paul  had 
counted  "hypocrisy,"  and  now  Barnabas  was  gone. 
The  blow  was  serious  to  Paul's  work  and  the  heart- 
ache real. 

Men  Drop  Out — God's  Work  Goes  On 
But  no  man  is  absolutely  essential  to  the  cause  of 
Christ.     The  pastor  who  resigns  in  a  hurry  with  the 


SILAS  THE  COMRADE  139 

expectation  of  being  asked  to  stay  may  do  that  once 
too  often.  His  resignation  may  be  accepted.  His 
place  will  be  filled.  The  work  will  go  on.  This  is 
true  in  business  and  in  statecraft.  Paul  had  a  man 
right  at  hand  to  take  the  place  of  Barnabas.  Silas 
possessed  many  of  the  traits  of  the  "son  of  consola- 
tion." He  had  influence  in  the  Jerusalem  church, 
though  a  Hellenist  like  Barnabas  and  a  Roman  citizen 
like  Paul.  He  was  in  thorough  sympathy  with  the 
onward  movement  of  Christianity  among  the  Gentiles 
as  shown  by  his  previous  conduct.  His  leadership  and 
prophetic  gift  gave  him  special  adaptation  for  the 
missionary  enterprise.  It  is  clear  that  Silas  accepted 
with  alacrity  the  invitation  of  Paul  to  share  his  for- 
tunes in  the  new  tour.  The  sympathy  of  the  church  at 
Antioch  was  with  Paul  and  Silas,  "commended  by  the 
brethren  to  the  grace  of  the  Lord"  (Acts  15  140). 

So  Paul  went  on  through  Syria  and  Cilicia  strength- 
ening the  churches  (Acts  15:14).  Silas  did  not,  of 
course,  measure  up  to  the  stature  of  Barnabas  in  this 
new  partnership.  He  was  manifestly  more  Paul's 
helper  and  less  Paul's  equal,  as  they  set  out  on  the 
fresh  campaign  of  world  conquest  for  Christ.  It  was 
now  specially  Paul's  campaign.  He  selected  Silas  as 
later  he  chose  Timothy  and  Luke.  But  Silas  will  be 
no  figurehead  in  their  tour.  He  is  already  a  man  of 
experience  and  of  prowess,  but  quite  willing  to  take 
second  place  with  Paul  whom  he  evidently  greatly 
admires.  Harnack  ("The  Acts  of  the  Apostles,"  p. 
201)  thinks  that  Silas  was  Luke's  authority  for  the 
events  at  Jerusalem  and  Antioch  in  Acts  15.  This  may 
well  be.  Timothy  came  into  the  party  (Acts  16:3)  in 


140  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

the  place  of  John  Mark  and  would  take  a  lower  place 
than  Silas.  One  of  the  notable  things  about  Paul  is 
his  skill  in  the  choice  of  his  co-workers.  He  loved 
them  and  gloried  in  them.  In  return  they  showed 
a  firm  spirit  of  loyalty  and  devotion.  Paul  gathered 
round  him  a  wonderful  group  of  friends  and  workers 
in  the  gospel. 

V.    PRISONER   IN    PHILIPPI 

The  narrative  in  Acts  16:19-40  shows  that  in  the 
eyes  of  the  masters  of  the  poor  girl  who  had  been 
set  free  by  Paul  from  the  demoniac  possessions,  Silas 
was  equally  guilty  with  Paul.  The  girl  had  described 
"these  men"  (Paul,  Silas,  Timothy,  Luke)  as  "slaves 
of  the  most  high  God  who  proclaim  to  you  a  way  of 
salvation"  (Acts  16:17).  Paul  spoke  the  word  to 
the  spirit  of  evil  in  the  girl  (Acts  16:18).  But  the 
girl's  masters  (/cupiot)  laid  hands  on  Silas  as  well 
as  Paul  when  they  saw  the  hope  of  their  gain  from 
the  exploitation  of  the  girl  was  gone.  Perhaps  they 
saw  that  Silas  was  Paul's  right-hand  man  and  had  ex- 
pressed decided  approval  of  Paul's  conduct.  Anyhow, 
they  try  to  implicate  him  as  particeps  crimirtis  in  the 
loss  of  their  business.  This  is  primarily  what  con- 
cerned them  and  they  wish  to  take  their  spite  out  on 
both  Paul  and  Silas.  They  may  have  hoped  that  with 
Paul  and  Silas  out  of  the  way  the  girl  would  recover 
her  power  of  divination.  They  made  no  distinction 
in  the  treatment  of  Paul  and  Silas  and  in  the  charges 
made  against  them.  They  were  both  handled  roughly 
and  dragged  into  the  market-place  before  the  magis- 
trates (praetors).  Their  business  had  been  hit  as 


SILAS  THE  COMRADE  141 

was  true  later  of  Demetrius  in  Ephesus,  but  they  do 
not  tell  the  real  cause  of  their  complaint  against  Paul 
and  Silas.  They  rather  pose  as  patriots  and  make  a 
grandstand  play  to  the  populace.  It  is  patriotism  for 
profit,  but  this  they  conceal  by  arousing  race  prejudice 
of  Romans  against  Jews  and  accuse  Paul  and  Silas 
with  being  law  breakers  (16:21).  Judaism  was  a  legal 
religion  in  the  Roman  Empire,  but  to  persuade  Roman 
citizens  to  adopt  Jewish  customs  was  not  allowed 
(Rackham). 

The  charge  was  untrue  in  fact,  and  the  obvious 
refutation  was  at  hand  since  both  Paul  and  Silas  were 
Roman  citizens  themselves.  It  has  often  been  asked 
why  Paul  and  Silas  did  not  lay  claim  to  their  Roman 
citizenship  and  put  a  stop  to  the  alleged  trial.  Paul 
saved  himself  from  scourging  in  Jerusalem  by  claim- 
ing his  rights  (Acts  22:25-29).  Some  say  that  Silas 
was  not  a  Roman  citizen  and  that  Paul  was  silent  to 
shield  Silas.  He  was  not  willing  to  save  himself  and 
leave  Silas  in  peril.  But  Paul  expressly  says  in  Acts 
16:37  that  both  are  Romans.  The  obvious  explana- 
tion lies  in  the  fact  that  the  multitude  gave  them  no 
opportunity  to  say  anything  in  self-defense  (Acts 
16:22). 

It  was  no  trial  at  all,  but  a  farce.  The  praetors 
ordered  them  to  be  scourged  and  put  in  prison  without 
allowing  Paul  and  Silas  to  say  anything.  This  was 
done  in  response  to  the  popular  clamor  caused  by  the 
adroit  charge  of  the  girl's  masters.  Paul  seems  to  say 
precisely  this  in  his  dignified  refusal  to  leave  next 
morning  after  the  earthquake  and  the  conversion  of 
the  jailer.  The  praetors  had  evidently  become  uneasy 


TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

at  their  illegal  conduct  and  sent  sergeants  to  set  the 
men  free.  "They  have  beaten  us,"  "men  that  are 
Romans,"  says  Paul  (Acts  16:37).  This  was  unlaw- 
ful. One  of  the  rights  of  Roman  citizenship  was 
exemption  from  scourging.  They  have  done  it  "pub- 
licly," an  added  indignity.  They  have  "cast  us  into 
prison"  "uncondemned"  or  without  a  trial.  The  prae- 
tors were  themselves  in  grave  peril  and  Paul  can  afford 
to  demand  a  dignified  dismissal  at  the  hands  of  the 
praetors  themselves. 

The  Courage  of  Silas 

The  conduct  of  Silas  during  the  imprisonment  was 
courageous.  With  their  feet  fast  in  the  stocks  "Paul 
and  Silas  were  praying  and  singing  hymns  unto  God, 
and  the  prisoners  were  listening  to  them"  (Acts 
16:25).  It  was  a  strange  sound  at  midnight  in  that 
prison  and  won  an  eager  audience  scattered  in  the 
various  cells.  These  were  men  who  had  praises  to  God 
instead  of  curses  for  men.  It  was  one  way  to  preach 
to  these  men  by  showing  how  the  Christian  can  turn 
trouble  into  joy  and  can  make  a  prison  the  very  gate 
of  heaven.  One  cannot  think  of  Paul  in  the  Philip- 
pian  jail  without  seeing  Silas  with  him,  both  happy 
in  the  stocks,  spite  of  bruised  bodies  and  unknown  ter- 
rors on  the  morrow.  They  were  happy  when  they 
were  with  Jesus.  The  earthquake  completed  the  con- 
viction of  the  jailer  who  had  been  deeply  moved  by 
the  conduct  of  these  strange  prisoners  who  had  mani- 
festly mingled  the  gospel  message  with  their  songs 
and  prayers.  He  fell  at  the  feet  of  both  Paul  and 


SILAS  THE  COMRADE 

Silas  and  asked  what  he  must  do  to  be  saved  (Acts  16 : 

29,  30). 

It  was  a  great  triumph  and  Silas  shared  it  with 
Paul.  Henceforth  Paul  and  Silas  were  linked  to- 
gether by  this  fellowship  in  suffering  like  soldiers  in 
battle.  This  experience  had  knit  their  souls  together. 
They  knew  that  Jesus  was  with  them  in  prison  as 
really  as  at  home.  When  they  left  Philippi  next  day, 
these  two  travellers  on  the  road  to  Amphipolis  and 
Thessalonica,  they  were  brothers  in  Christ  in  a  new 
way.  Luke  remained  in  Philippi,  his  probable  home. 
Timothy  apparently  tarried  for  a  while,  but  joined 
Paul  and  Silas  in  Beroea  (Acts  17:14).  Paul  and 
Silas  are  refugees  from  the  greed  of  men  who  will  not 
submit  calmly  to  the  loss  of  revenue.  It  was  the  old 
fight  of  money  against  man.  The  welfare  of  the  girl 
weighed  nothing  in  the  scale  when  the  money  was 
gone.  That  was  heathenism — that  is  heathenism  to- 
day, even  if  it  appears  in  child  labor  or  white  slavery 
or  brutal  indifference  to  girls,  women,  and  men  in 
store  and  factory. 

VI.    AN    EXILE    FROM    THESSALONICA 

In  Thessalonica  Silas  appears  as  the  co-worker  of 
Paul.  Paul  was  the  preacher,  but  Luke  records  that 
some  of  the  hearers  "consorted  with  Paul  and  Silas" 
(Acts  17:4).  The  jealousy  of  the  Jewish  rabbis  was 
directed  against  both  Paul  and  Silas.  When  they  had 
gathered  the  crowd  of  "vile  followers  of  the  rabble" 
they  went  to  Jason's  house  to  fetch  both  Paul  and  Silas 
(Acts  17:5)  apparently  for  the  mob  to  lynch  them. 
The  charge  laid  at  the  door  of  Jason  before  the  polit- 


144  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

archs  (technical  name  for  the  rulers  of  Thessalonica) 
is  that  he  had  entertained  Paul  and  Silas,  men  who 
"act  contrary  to  the  decrees  of  Caesar,  saying  that 
there  is  another  king,  one  Jesus"  (Acts  17:7).  This 
religious  rivalry  leads  the  rabbis  to  pose  as  friends  of 
Caesar  and  opposed  to  political  revolutionists  like 
Paul  and  Silas.  One  is  reminded  of  the  like  final 
threat  to  Pilate  to  tell  Caesar  if  he  let  Jesus  free  from 
the  charge  of  claiming  to  be  a  king.  They  well  knew 
that  Jesus  claimed  to  be  a  spiritual  King  as  these  rabbis 
probably  understood  the  real  meaning  of  Paul  and 
Silas.  But  hatred  grabs  at  every  technicality. 

Probably  Paul  in  Thessalonica  (see  2  Thess.  2) 
had  laid  some  stress  on  the  conflict  between  the  King- 
dom of  God  and  the  kingdom  of  this  world.  Certainly 
he  was  seeing  the  Roman  Empire  loom  up  as  the  very 
power  of  Antichrist.  The  conflict  between  Christ  and 
Caesar  was  very  real  in  ideals  and  spirit.  The  upshot 
of  it  all  was  that,  to  release  Jason  from  the  bond  which 
he  had  to  give  because  of  Paul  and  Silas,  they  both 
left  Thessalonica  for  Bercea. 

Silas  and  Paul  Work  Together 

Silas  was  now  in  the  full  swing  of  Paul's  missionary 
career  and  was  only  too  glad  to  be  with  Paul  during 
these  days  of  severe  trial.  He  was  learning  what  it 
was  to  face  the  anger  of  Roman  grafters  in  Philippi 
and  the  spite  of  jealous  Jewish  rabbis  in  Thessalonica 
as  he  had  seen  the  biting  bitterness  of  the  Judaisers 
in  Jerusalem.  But  it  was  all  in  the  day's  journey. 
The  Judaisers  might  yelp  at  Paul's  heels  and  the 
heathen  and  the  Jew  might  bark  at  his  onward  march 


SILAS  THE  COMRADE  145 

but  onward  he  would  go.  If  not  in  one  town,  then 
in  the  next.  Paul  and  Silas  left  the  gospel  entrenched 
in  Thessalonia,  as  in  Philippi,  before  they  left.  And 
Paul  kept  up  contact  with  the  churches  established. 

VII.      ON    GUARD   IN    BERO2A 

The  story  of  Thessalonica  was  soon  repeated  in 
Beroea.  The  success  of  the  Jewish  rabbis  there  soon 
brought  them  to  Beroea  and  Paul  left,  "sent  forth" 
by  the  brethren  as  far  as  Athens.  But  Silas  and 
Timothy  (who  has  now  come  on  from  Philippi,  prob- 
ably with  good  things  for  Paul  and  Silas)  "abode 
there  still"  (Acts  17:14).  This  time  the  brethren  evi- 
dently felt  that  it  was  enough  for  Paul  to  go.  The 
Jews  would  have  a  harder  time  in  rinding  fault  with 
Silas  and  Timothy,  now  that  the  leader  was  gone. 
And  yet  these  two  could  firmly  establish  the  work  there. 
Probably  Paul  had  been  in  Bercea  a  shorter  time  than 
in  Thessalonica  or  Philippi.  But  Paul  was  not  con- 
tent in  Athens  without  Silas  and  Timothy  and  sent 
back  word  from  Athens  for  these  to  come  on  to  him 
there  with  all  speed  (Acts  17:15).  It  is  not  clear 
that  they  came,  thought  it  seems  likely  that  Timothy 
came  alone,  leaving  Silas  in  Bercea.  Paul  speaks  of 
sending  Timothy  from  Athens  to  Thessalonica 
(i  Thess.  3:1,  2).  If  so,  Silas  remained  on  guard 
in  Bercea  for  some  while.  He  seems,  however,  to 
have  gone  on  to  Thessalonica  with  Timothy  whence 
both  went  to  see  Paul  in  Corinth.  It  is  plain  that  in 
this  period  Silas  had  a  ministry  of  more  independent 
responsibility  as  Paul's  representative  and  agent.  We 
may  be  sure  that  he  fulfilled  it  with  fidelity. 


146  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

VIII.      LAST   WORK    WITH    PAUL  IN    CORINTH 

"But  when  Silas  and  Timothy  came  down  from 
Macedonia,  Paul  devoted  himself  to  the  word"  (vvvd- 
XCTO  T£  \6j(f)  with  new  freedom  and  great  power,  testi- 
fying to  the  Jews  that  Jesus  was  the  Christ"  (Acts 
18:5).  In  other  words  now  Paul  made  fewer  tents 
and  did  more  constant  preaching,  with  the  result 
that  matters  came  quickly  to  a  crisis  in  Corinth 
and  Paul  had  to  move  his  preaching  from  the  syna- 
gogue to  the  house  of  Titus  Justus  next  door.  Here 
he  labored  with  great  blessing  for  a  year  and  a  half 
(Acts  18:11).  The  part  that  Silas  and  Timothy 
played  in  this  ministry  is  evident.  They  had  brought 
supplies  from  Macedonian  churches  so  that  Paul  was 
not  a  burden  to  the  critical  Corinthians  during  these 
days  (2  Cor.  n  :7~io).  The  church  at  Philippi  was 
the  first  to  help  Paul  in  his  missionary  campaign 
(Phil.  4:15-16),  doing  it  while  Paul  was  in  Thessa- 
lonica.  Probably  Philippi,  Thessalonica,  and  Bercea 
were  now  enlisted  in  the  good  work,  the  first  mission- 
ary union  in  the  history  of  Christianity.  Silas  and 
Timothy  were  the  bearers  of  this  bounty  and  probably 
also  the  agents  in  uniting  these  churches  in  this  co- 
operative effort.  Silas  and  Timothy  helped  Paul  in  the 
preaching  in  Corinth  as  he  gladly  acknowledged  later 
(2  Cor.  1:19).  Both  Silas  and  Timothy  send  salu- 
tations to  the  church  in  Thessalonica  when  Paul  writes 
to  them  (i  Thess.  i  :i ;  2  Thess.  1:1). 

When  Paul  left  Corinth,  he  seems  to  have  left  Silas 
and  Timothy  there.  Timothy  rejoined  Paul  later  in 
Ephesus  (Acts  19:22),  but  we  have  no  further  record 
of  Silas  in  connection  with  Paul.  Some  think  that  a 


SILAS  THE  COMRADE  147 

break  came  between  these  two  men,  but  that  is  a 
gratuitous  suggestion.  Paul's  work  had  multiplied 
greatly.  Men  were  needed  at  many  points.  It  is  quite 
possible  that  Silas  remained  in  Ephesus  till  Apollos 
came  or  nearly  till  then.  He  does  not  appear  in  the 
troubles  in  Corinth  after  the  arrival  of  Apollos. 

IX.    WITH   PETER  IN  BABYLON    (ROME) 

Our  last  glimpse  of  Silas  (Silvanus)  is  as  the 
amanuensis  of  Peter  and  the  bearer  of  the  First 
Epistle  from  Rome  to  the  provinces  in  Asia  Minor 
(  i  Pet.  5  :i2).  It  is  likely  that  Silas,  like  Tertius  in 
Romans  16:22,  wrote  out  the  Epistle  for  Peter.  He 
may  have  been  at  liberty  to  touch  up  the  phraseology 
and  the  result  may  represent  something  of  his  own 
style.  Thus  many  explain  the  difference  between  the 
style  of  i  Peter  and  2  Peter  (without  the  aid  of  an 
amanuensis).  One  need  not  think  that  Silas  had  de- 
serted Paul  because  he  is  with  Peter.  The  work  of 
Paul  and  Peter  ran  parallel  more  and  more.  As  John 
Mark  was  a  comfort  to  both  men,  so  Silas  seems  to 
have  been.  He  was  a  comrade  of  the  great  and  toiled 
with  them  worthily. 


CHAPTER  IX 
TITUS  THE  COURAGEOUS 

Not  a  great  deal  of  attention  is  paid  to  Titus  in  mod- 
ern books,  and  yet  he  played  a  not  unimportant  part 
in  early  Christian  history.  He  is  not  mentioned  in 
Acts  by  namey  though  probably  included  in  the  "cer- 
tain others"  of  Acts  15:2.  It  is  in  2  Corinthians, 
Galatians  and  the  Pastoral  Epistles  that  he  is  promi- 
nent. 

A  BROTHER   OF   LUKE 

This  is,  at  least,  probable.  It  is  curious,  that  in 
the  Acts  neither  Luke  nor  Titus  is  mentioned  by  name. 
We  can  see  why  Luke  should  leave  out  his  own  name. 
If  Titus  was  his  brother,  then  we  can  understand  the 
omission  of  his  name  also.  In  2  Cor.  12  :i8  "the 
brother"  naturally  in  the  Greek  means  "his  brother," 
as  Professor  A.  Souter  has  shown.  The  same  thing 
is  probable  in  2  Cor.  8  :i8.  The  book  of  Acts  fails  to 
reveal  the  part  played  by  Luke  and  Titus  in  the  life 
and  work  of  Paul.  The  Epistles  make  us  wonder  why 
this  omission  exists  when  the  other  co-laborers  of 
Paul  receive  frequent  mention. 

A   REAL   GREEK 

Paul  expressly  states,  Gal.  2 13,  that  Titus  was  a 
Greek.  His  name  is  Roman,  like  that  of  Paul,  but 
that  proves  nothing  as  to  his  race.  It  has  been  held 

148 


TITUS  THE  COURAGEOUS  149 

by  some  that  Titus  is  merely  another  name  for  Tim- 
othy, Silas,  or  Titus  Justus,  but  that  idea  has  not 
gained  credence.  He  was  a  pure  Greek.  If  he  was,  as 
is  probable,  the  brother  of  Luke,  then  it  follows  that 
Luke  was  also  a  Greek,  not  a  Hellenistic  Jew.  He  was 
one  of  the  first  fruits  of  the  Greek  world  that  made 
such  a  large  contribution  to  early  Christianity. 

Jesus  foresaw  (see  John  12)  that  the  Greeks  would 
come  to  him,  but  only  as  he  drew  them  by  the  Cross. 
Paul  sees  that  the  Cross  had  broken  down  the  middle 
wall  of  partition  between  Jew  and  Gentile.  At  any 
rate  here  is  Titus,  the  Greek,  who  is  a  trusted  inter- 
preter of  Christ  to  the  Gentiles.  And  Luke,  his 
brother,  has  given  us  the  Greek  scholar's  view  of 
Christ,  Peter  and  Paul  and  others,  of  the  origin  of 
Christianity. 

PAUL'S  SON  IN  THE  GOSPEL 

"My  true  child  after  a  common  faith,"  Paul  terms 
him,  Titus  1 14.  It  is  not  known  where  his  home  was, 
but  he  went  with  Paul  from  Antioch  to  Jerusalem  to 
the  Conference,  Gal.  2:  1-3:  Acts  15:2,  and  was  al- 
ready an  active  participant  in  the  life  of  the  Greek 
Church  at  Antioch.  He  may  have  come  into  this 
church  before  the  first  mission  tour,  or  he  may  have 
been  a  product  of  this  campaign.  At  any  rate,  Paul 
picked  him  out  as  a  recruit  for  Christ  and  he  appears 
with  Paul  from  time  to  time  in  his  work,  as  we  shall 
see.  Paul  kept  a  weather  eye  open  for  young  ministers, 
and  gathered  a  notable  and  noble  company  of  them 
whom  he  trained  to  carry  on  the  work  with  him  and 
after  him,  2  Tim.  2: iff.  A  minister  who  has  no  sons 


150  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

in  the  gospel  has  failed  in  a  large  part  of  his  work.  It 
should  be  the  policy  of  every  preacher  to  pray  and 
work  for  labourers  for  the  harvest.  A  church  that 
does  not  produce  preachers  is  in  reality  a  dying  church 
without  spiritual  energy. 

A    FIREBRAND    FOR    THE    JUDAISERS 

This  is  the  first  time  (Acts  15)  that  Titus  appears 
in  the  Apostolic  history.  Paul  mentions  it  a  long 
time  afterwards,  unless,  indeed,  Galatians  is  the  first 
of  Paul's  Epistles  as  Ramsay  now  holds.  It  can  be 
readily  perceived  why  Luke,  who  gives  in  Acts  15 
the  public  aspects  of  the  Conference  in  Jerusalem, 
should  pass  by  the  details  of  the  private  meeting  of 
the  leaders  where  Paul  first  carried  his  point  and  where 
the  case  of  Titus  was  brought  forward  as  involving  the 
whole  controversy.  Paul  and  Barnabas  had  resented 
the  insolent  demand  of  the  Judaisers,  who  had  come 
from  Jerusalem  to  Antioch,  that  the  Gentile  Christians 
should  be  circumcised  after  the  custom  of  Moses,  Acts 
I5:iff.  These  meddlers  had  come  without  the  ap- 
proval of  the  Jerusalem  Church,  Acts  15  124,  and  Paul 
defied  them.  He  determined  to  get  the  Jerusalem 
Church  to  disown  them  and  to  stand  by  the  freedom 
of  the  Gentile  Christians  from  the  Mosaic  rites  and 
ceremonies.  Paul  took  along  Titus,  who  was  probably 
appointed  by  the  church.  The  very  presence  of  Titus 
in  the  Conference  at  Jerusalem  was  intolerable  to  the 
Judaisers  and  to  the  compromising  brethren  who  were 
in  favor  of  smoothing  things  over.  Paul's  language 
in  Gal.  2 13-5  is  quite  involved,  probably  a  reflection 
of  his  vehement  passion  on  the  occasion  and  the  desire 


TITUS  THE  COURAGEOUS  151 

to  be  fair  all  around.  It  has  been  understood  variously, 
but  the  following  is  the  most  likely  meaning.  Some 
of  "the  false  brethren"  (Judaisers)  boldly  demanded 
that  Titus  be  circumcised  before  he  be  allowed  to 
participate  in  the  Conference,  these  "who  came  in 
privily  to  spy  out  our  liberty  which  we  have  in  Christ 
Jesus,  that  they  might  bring  us  into  bondage,"  Gal. 
2  14.  The  weaker  brethren  begged  Paul  "because  of 
the  false  brethren  privily  brought  in"  to  yield  this 
point  on  condition  that  a  resolution  be  passed  guaran- 
teeing liberty  to  the  Gentile  Christians.  But  Paul 
would  have  no  paper  resolutions  that  were  mere 
scraps  of  paper  to  be  violated  when  put  to  the  test. 
Titus  was  really  a  test  case.  The  whole  issue  was 
involved  in  him.  Paul  could  not  look  his  Gentile  con- 
verts in  the  face  with  a  set  of  solemn  decrees  in  his 
hand  and  the  fact  of  surrender  in  the  case  of  Titus 
nullifying  the  words  of  freedom,  so  he  took  his  stand 
against  the  compromisers,  "to  whom  we  gave  place 
in  the  way  of  subjection,  no,  not  for  an  hour;  that 
the  truth  of  the  Gospel  might  continue  with  you," 
Gal.  2  15.  It  was  as  serious  a  matter  as  that  in  Paul's 
opinion.  If  Christ  could  not  save  Gentiles  without 
their  becoming  Jews,  there  was  no  Gospel  of  Grace  at 
all,  but  merely  the  imposition  of  the  old  legalism  under 
the  form  of  Christianity.  "But  not  even  Titus  who 
was  with  me,  being  a  Greek,  was  compelled  to  be 
circumcised,"  Gal.  2  :3.  Courage  won  liberty  for  Titus 
and  so  for  all  Gentiles.  Evangelical  Christianity,  spir- 
itual religion,  was  really  at  stake  in  this  great  con- 
troversy. Titus  was  the  innocent  crux  of  the  matter 
in  Jerusalem.  A  cause  is  often  summed  up  in  a  man. 


152  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

Titus  was  a  red  rag  to  the  Judaisers,  but  he  was  the 
flag  of  freedom  for  the  Gentiles.  Paul  won  Peter, 
John  and  James  to  his  position.  He  already  had  Bar- 
nabas with  him,  so  he  carried  the  decision  of  the  Con- 
ference and  took  Titus  back  with  him  as  the  badge  of 
Gentile  liberty. 

PAUL'S  AGENT  IN  THE  GREAT  COLLECTIONS 

We  catch  glimpses  of  Titus  later  in  Paul's  life,  par- 
ticularly in  2  Corinthians.  In  chapter  8  Paul  says 
that  Titus  "had  made  a  beginning,"  8:6,  in  the  mat- 
ter of  the  great  collections  for  the  poor  saints  in  Jerusa- 
lem, and  that  it  was  a  year  ago,  the  very  first  effort 
in  the  campaign,  and  by  you  "who  were  the  first  to 
make  a  beginning  a  year  ago,  not  only  to  do,  but  also 
to  will,"  8: 10.  Paul  had  boasted  "that  Achaia  hath 
been  prepared  a  year  past  and  your  zeal  hath  stirred 
up  very  many  of  them,"  9 :2. 

Titus  then  was  the  first  of  Paul's  agents  to  take 
hold  of  this  great  money-raising  campaign  that  did 
so  much  to  teach  the  early  churches  co-operation  and 
practical  fellowship.  He  was  eminetly  successful 
and  won  such  a  hearty  response  in  Corinth  that  Paul 
used  it  to  stir  the  churches  of  Macedonia  to  like  ac- 
tivity. The  churches  in  Achaia  were  a  bit  slow  in 
paying  their  pledges  and  Titus  had  to  be  sent  later  to 
urge  prompt  payment.  But  Paul  was  proud  of  his 
agents  in  the  collection  and  demanded  for  them  full 
support  from  the  churches,  2  Cor.  8:24.  Some  min- 
isters have  a  dislike  for  the  financial  side  of  church 
work,  but  Paul  shows  no  sympathy  with  such  an  atti- 
tude. In  chapters  8  and  9  of  2  Corinthians  he  handles 


TITUS  THE  COURAGEOUS  153 

the  subject  without  gloves.  Paul  is  full  of  gratitude 
for  the  courage  and  skill  of  Titus  in  this  campaign, 
8:16.  It  is  possible  that  on  this  first  trip  Titus  did 
not  have  to  stay  long. 

PAUL'S  CHAMPION  IN  CORINTH 

Matters  soon  began  to  go  wrong  in  Corinth  because 
of  the  Judaising  agitators  and  the  factions  created  in 
the  church,  cf.  i  Cor.  i  :ioff.  These  disturbances 
probably  go  far  towards  explaining  the  non-payment 
of  the  pledges  made  to  Titus.  Paul  sent  Timothy  over, 
but  he  seems  to  have  failed  to  do  much  in  the  matter, 
i  Cor.  4:17;  16:10.  He  may  have  made  a  short  visit 
himself,  but  he  certainly  wrote  a  letter  to  them  before 
our  i  Corinthians,  i  Cor.  5  :g.  He  then  wrote  the 
extended  reply  to  all  their  inquiries  and  sent  our  i  Co- 
rinthians. But  Titus  had  to  be  sent  also,  for  Timothy 
brought  back  bad  news.  Titus  may  have  carried  the 
sharp  epistle  mentioned  in  2  Cor.  2  14  and  7 :8-i2,  which 
caused  the  Corinthians  so  much  sorrow  and  gave  Paul 
real  anguish  of  soul,  being  written  in  tears.  But- 
tressed by  this  powerful  letter  Titus  stood  the  factions 
down  and  won  a  clean  victory  for  Paul.  There  was  a 
stubborn  minority  led  by  the  Judaisers  left.  But  the 
four  factions  dwindled  to  two.  It  was  now  a  clear- 
cut  issue  with  the  Pauline  party  in  full  control.  This 
news  Titus  brought  to  Macedonia  to  Paul,  who  had 
hurried  over  from  Troas,  tortured  by  anxiety  and  un- 
able to  wait  there  as  by  arrangement,  2  Cor.  2:i2ff. 
Titus  comforted  Paul  greatly,  7:5-7.  "Therefore  we 
have  been  comforted;  and  in  our  comfort  we  joyed 
the  more  exceedingly  for  the  joy  of  Titus  because  his 


154.  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

spirit  hath  been  refreshed  by  you  all,"  7:13.  Paul's 
heart  ran  over  with  joy  at  the  victory  of  Titus  in 
Corinth.  It  was  good  for  them,  too,  to  meet  in  the 
hour  of  triumph.  It  was  natural  for  Titus  to  feel 
proud  of  the  outcome  in  Corinth.  Paul  was  glad  that 
he  had  not  lost  his  faith  in  the  brethren  there  in  spite 
of  their  factions.  "For  if  in  anything  I  have  gloried 
to  him  on  your  behalf,  I  was  not  put  to  shame;  but 
as  we  spake  all  things  to  you  in  truth,  so  our  glorying 
also  which  I  made  before  Titus  was  found  to  be 
truth,"  7:14.  Paul  wishes  to  assure  the  Corinthians 
of  Titus'  affection  for  them.  "And  his  affection  is 
more  abundantly  toward  you,  while  he  remembereth 
the  obedience  of  you  all,  how  with  fear  and  trembling 
ye  received  him,"  7:15.  Evidently  there  had  been 
moments  of  uncertainty  and  of  uneasiness,  but  it  had 
now  turned  out  all  right  through  the  tact  of  Titus 
and  their  own  rightmindedness.  "I  rejoice  that  in 
everything  I  am  of  good  courage  concerning  you," 
7:16.  So  then  Titus  had  met  every  expectation  of 
Paul  in  this  crisis  of  affairs  at  Corinth.  He  had 
routed -the  Judaisers  as  Paul  had  done  in  Jerusalem, 
all  but  the  stubborn  minority.  And  Titus  was  the 
man  to  tackle- them. 

THE  THIRD  VISIT   TO    CORINTH 

One  good  turn  deserves  another.  Nothing  succeeds 
like  success.  So  Paul  writes  our  2  Corinthians,  for 
the  integrity  of  this  epistle  is  still  on  the  whole  prob- 
able. The  first  part  explains  Paul's  elation  at  the  vic- 
tory of  Titus  and  expresses  Paul's  gratitude  over  the 
attitude  of  the  majority.  Chapters  8  and  9  take  up  the 


TITUS  THE  COURAGEOUS  155 

matter  of  paying  the  pledges  of  a  year  ago,  the  way 
for  which  is  now  clear.  Titus  is  to  go  back  to  Cor- 
inth for  this  purpose  with  two  other  brethren,  prob- 
ably Luke  and  Erastus,  Acts  19 122.  Timothy  did  not 
go,  but  sent  his  greetings  along  with  those  of  Paul, 
2  Cor.  i  :i.  Paul  pleads  for  a  kind  reception  for 
Titus,  his  personal  representative,  and  for  the  other 
two  messengers  ("apostles")  of  the  churches,  8:18-24. 
He  plans  to  come  later  himself,  and  does  not  wish  any 
Macedonians  to  find  them  still  behind  with  the  money, 
9:3ff.  Titus  probably  took  with  him  our  2  Corin- 
thians, which  also  has  a  plain  warning  to  the  Judaising 
minority,  10-13,  an<3  a  threat  of  sterner  measures 
when  Paul  does  come  if  they  are  needed.  Paul  then 
goes  round  about  to  Illyricum,  Rom.  15:19,  and  waits 
for  Titus  to  do  this  finishing  job  in  Corinth.  It  was 
superbly  done  so  far  as  we  can  judge,  for  Paul  later 
spent  three  months  there,  Acts  20:3,  without  serious 
opposition  from  Judaisers,  though  the  Jews  made  a 
plot  against  him  as  he  was  leaving. 

THE   EVANGELIST   IN    CRETE 

We  hear  no  more  of  Titus  for  some  ten  years,  not 
till  after  Paul's  visit  to  Jerusalem,  the  imprisonment 
in  Caesarea  and  in  Rome,  and  the  release.  Paul  writes 
a  short  letter  to  Titus  whom  he  had  left  in  Crete,  Titus 
i  :5.  So  then  Titus  had  another  ministry  with  Paul 
here.  Paul  apparently  had  to  leave  the  island  before 
the  work  of  organisation  was  complete.  He  left  the 
finishing  of  this  work  in  the  hands  of  Titus.  He  was 
to  set  in  order  things  there  and  to  appoint  elders  in 
every  city,  just  like  a  modern  missionary  in  a  heathen 


156  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

land.  Paul  seems  familiar  with  conditions  in  Crete 
and  gives  Titus  careful  directions  how  to  meet  the 
peculiar  problems  of  his  field  there.  A  form  of  Phar- 
isaic gnosticism  had  gotten  a  foothold,  and  it  fell  in 
with  the  follies  and  weaknesses  of  the  Cretan  tempera- 
ment as  their  own  poet  had  said,  i  :io-i6.  "Let  no 
man  despise  thee,"  2:15.  Titus  was  to  show  the  same 
courage  that  he  had  manifested  in  Corinth.  We  may 
be  sure  that  Titus  did  not  disappoint  Paul  in  dealing 
with  the  sins  of  the  various  social  groups  in  the 
churches  of  Crete,  2:1-14,  and  in  the  selection  of  men 
who  had  the  proper  qualifications  for  the  ministry, 
1 17-9.  Factious  men  must  be  dealt  with  sharply, 
3  :ioff,  as  Titus  had  learned  how  to  do  in  Corinth. 
Titus  came  to  be  regarded  as  the  patron  saint  in  Crete, 
and  his  tomb  was  long  believed  to  be  at  Gortyna, 
though  that  is  by  no  means  certain.  He  did  not  re- 
main in  Crete  as  we  know. 

FURTHER  PLANS  FOR  TITUS 

Paul  apparently  sent  the  letter  to  Titus  by  Zenas 
the  lawyer,  and  Apollos,  Titus  3:13,  who  were  to 
carry  on  the  work  in  Crete,  while  Titus  was  to  join 
Paul  in  Nicopolis  before  winter,  3:12.  We  do  not 
know,  of  course,  whether  Titus  was  able  to  join  Paul 
then,  but  there  is  no  particular  reason  to  think  other- 
wise. We  do  know  that  he  was  with  Paul  shortly  be- 
fore he  wrote  his  last  letter  to  Timothy,  2  Tim.  4:10, 
for  Paul  expressly  states  that  Titus  had  left  for  Dal- 
matia.  There  is  no  indication  that  Titus  had  deserted 
Paul  in  his  hour  of  peril  in  Rome  as  Demas  had  done. 
Rather  it  appears  that  he  was  Paul's  messenger  from 


TITUS  THE  COURAGEOUS  157 

Rome  to  the  churches  in  Dalmatia,  the  lower  part  of 
Illyricum,  probably  to  the  field  that  Paul  had  himself 
once  visited,  Rom.  15:19.  To  the  last  Paul  was  full 
of  plans  for  pushing  on  the  work  of  the  kingdom.  At 
the  very  time  he  is  pleading  with  Timothy  to  pick 
up  Mark  and  come  to  him  in  his  loneliness,  he  is  dis- 
patching Crescens  to  Galatia  and  Titus  to  Dalmatia. 
The  work  must  go  on  and  merely  personal  considera- 
tions must  give  way  to  the  interests  of  the  kingdom. 
This  is  the  spirit  of  the  general.  Titus  responded  to 
the  brave  spirit  of  Paul  and  did  his  part  to  the  end. 
We  know  nothing  more  of  Titus.  We  may  be  sure 
that  he  did  not  lose  heart  when  the  final  blow  fell 
upon  Paul.  He  was  a  man  of  force,  who  knew  how 
to  drive  things  through,  a  lieutenant  to  be  trusted  at 
a  critical  moment,  a  man  to  be  counted  on  in  an  emer- 
gency. It  is  good  to  know  that  there  are  always  men 
who  will  leap  to  the  fore  when  the  captain  falls  and 
rally  the  men  to  the  colours.  Titus  first  comes  on  the 
scene  as  a  sort  of  stormy  petrel  in  Paul's  life.  He 
was  with  him  to  the  finish  and  felt  only  that  he  did  a 
day's  work  as  he  met  it.  Paul  thanked  God  for  Titus, 
"My  true  child  after  a  common  faith." 


CHAPTER  X 
TIMOTHY  THE  FAITHFUL 

Paul  loved  Timothy  with  the  utmost  devotion.  He 
was  more  tender  and  sympathetic  than  Titus,  though 
not  so  forceful.  He  was  probably  not  so  gifted  or  so 
cultured  as  Luke,  but  he  was  equally  loyal  and  loving. 

HIS    GREEK    FATHER 

This  is  all  that  is  told  about  his  father,  Acts  16:1. 
He  was  hardly  a  proselyte,  for  Timothy  had  not  been 
circumcised  before  he  became  a  Christian.  He  may 
have  been  one  of  the  devout  Greeks  like  Cornelius 
who  attended  the  synagogue.  It  is  hardly  likely  that 
he  was  an  aggressive  heathen  who  made  things  un- 
comfortable at  home.  The  rather,  it  seems  clear,  that 
the  Greek  father  left  the  training  of  Timothy  to  the 
mother  and  grandmother.  But  Timothy  could  not 
fail  to  receive  some  impress  from  Greek  culture  of 
the  time  through  his  father.  The  home  was  in  Lystra 
in  Lycaonia,  and  was  on  one  of  the  great  Roman  thor- 
oughfares between  the  east  and  the  west. 

A    HOME    OF    PIETY 

His  mother  was  "a  Jewess  that  believed,"  Acts  16:1, 
when  Paul  and  Barnabas  first  came  to  Lystra.  Tim- 
othy and  she  may  have  been  in  that  circle  of  disciples 
who  stood  round  Paul's  body  in  fear  that  he  was  dead, 

158 


TIMOTHY  THE  FAITHFUL  159 

Acts  I4:igi,  when  the  mob  had  dragged  him  out  of 
the  city  and  left  him.  His  mother's  name  was  Eunice 
and  his  grandmother  was  Lois,  who  saw  to  it  that 
Timothy  was  reared  in  the  faith  of  his  Jewish  fathers, 
2  Tim.  1 15.  No  doubt  these  good  women  took  extra 
pains  beyond  the  legal  commands  because  of  the  Greek 
influence  on  his  life.  They  taught  him  the  Holy 
Scriptures  from  a  babe,  2  Tim.  3:15.  Paul  could 
remind  Timothy  of  his  great  privilege  in  this  regard 
and  urge  fidelity  to  such  teaching,  2  Tim.  1 15 ;  3  114. 
It  is  impossible  to  overestimate  the  value  of  teaching 
children  the  Bible.* 

One  reason  why  people  know  so  little  about  the 
Scriptures  is  just  that  they  do  not  learn  the  Bible  in 
childhood. 

A  DISCOVERY  OF  PAUL'S 

Paul  was  on  the  constant  lookout  for  young" 
preachers.  He  saw  the  tremendous  demand  for  them 
if  Christianity  was  to  grow  and  extend  over  the  world. 
Jesus  had  sorrowed  as  he  saw  the  harvest  ripe  and  the 
labourers  so  few,  Matt.  9 :37f.  Timothy  was  converted 
during  the  first  mission  and  was  one  of  Paul's  con- 
verts because  he  called  him  "my  true  child  in  faith," 
i  Tim.  1 12;  "my  child  Timothy,"  I  :i8;  "my  beloved 
child,"  2  Tim.  1 12 ;  "my  beloved  and  faithful  child 
in  the  Lord,"  I  Cor.  4:17.  When  Paul  came  to  Lystra 
on  the  second  mission  tour,  "him  would  Paul  have  to 
go  forth  with  him,"  Acts  16:3.  This  was  after  the 
break  between  Paul  and  Barnabas  over  John  Mark  when 
Paul  and  Silas  started  out  together,  15:36-40.  At 

*  Mrs.  Ella  B.  Robertson  has  made  a  volume  of  selections  for 
children  called  "The  Heart  of  the  Bible"  (Nelson's  Sons). 


160  TYPEiS  OF  PREACHERS 

Lystra,  Timothy  was  picked  up  and  was  with  Paul  for 
most  of  his  ministry  while  Mark  had  varying  fortunes 
and  final  success  with  Barnabas  and  Peter  and  again 
with  Paul.  Few  things  in  Paul's  life  gave  him  more 
comfort  than  the  finding  of  Timothy.  He  had  been 
educated  as  a  Jew,  and  yet  was  not  a  Jew.  Paul  knew 
how  to  fight  for  principle,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Greek 
Titus,  but  he  knew  also  how  to  smooth  out  difficulties 
when  no  principle  was  involved.  Timothy  was  neither 
Jew  nor  Greek,  and  so  would  be  constantly  objection- 
able to  the  Jewish  Christians.  So  Paul  "took  and  cir- 
cumcised him  because  of  the  Jews  that  were  in  those 
parts;  for  they  all  knew  that  his  father  was  a  Greek," 
16:3.  Paul  felt  no  inconsistency  at  all  in  this  con- 
duct and  that  about  Titus,  for  "as  they  went  on  their 
way  through  the  cities,  they  delivered  them  the  decrees 
to  keep  that  had  been  ordained  of  the  apostles  and 
elders  that  were  at  Jerusalem,"  16:4.  Probably  before 
going  on  with  the  tour,  the  ordination  servive  took 
place  for  inducting  Timothy  into  the  ministry.  There 
is  not  a  great  deal  said  about  ordination  in  the  New 
Testament,  but  Timothy's  case  seems  clear.  Paul 
prided  himself  to  a  degree  on  his  insight  into  Timothy's 
character  at  the  first.  He  saw  the  promise  that  was  in 
this  gifted  youth.  He  reminds  Timothy  that  he  "stir 
up  (literally  keep  ablaze)  the  gift  of  God  that  is  in 
thee  through  the  laying  on  of  my  hands,"  I  Tim.  1 :6. 
Alas,  how  often  is  it  true  that  the  young  minister  lets 
the  fire  burn  low,  the  flame  of  the  Lord  fresh  from  the 
altar.  Paul  was  greatly  exercised  that  Timothy  keep 
up  his  habits  of  study  and  devotion.  It  is  seldom  that 
more  wisdom  for  a  young  minister  is  found  in  fewer 


TIMOTHY  THE  FAITHFUL  161 

words  than  these  of  Paul  to  Timothy,  "Till  I  come, 
give  heed  to  reading,  to  exhortation,  to  teaching.  Neg- 
lect not  the  gift  that  is  in  thee  which  was  given  thee 
by  prophecy,  with  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the 
presbytery.  Be  diligent  in  these  things;  give  thyself 
wholly  to  them;  that  thy  progress  may  be  manifest 
unjo  all.  Take  heed  to  thyself,  and  to  thy  teaching. 
Continue  In  these  things;  for  in  doing  this  thou  shalt 
save  both  thyself  and  them  that  hear  thee,"  i  Tim. 
4:13-16.  From  the  ordination  service  on  through  the 
years  Paul  had  Timothy  on  his  heart  and  tried  to 
steer  his  course  aright.  But  there  was  no  patronising 
of  Timothy  by  Paul.  He  spoke  of  him  to  others  in 
the  noblest  way  as,  "our  brother  and  God's  minister 
in  the  Gospel  of  Christ,"  I  Thess.  3  12;  "for  he  worketh 
the  work  of  the  Lord  as  I  also  do,"  I  Cor.  16:10; 
"Timothy  our  brother,"  2  Cor.  I  :i ;  Col.  i  :i ;  Phile- 
mon i,  "Paul  and  Timothy,  slaves  of  Jesus  Christ," 
Phil,  i  :i;  "Timothy  my  fellow-worker,"  Rom.  16:21. 
Paul's  protege  became  his  co-worker  on  the  level  of 
high  service  for  Christ. 

NOT   WITHOUT    HONOUR   AT   HOME 

Jesus  found  that  a  prophet  had  no  honour  at  home 
according  to  the  proverb.  Nazareth  twice  cast  him 
out.  Many  a  young  preacher  has  had  to  make  a  start 
in  spite  of  the  indifference,  scepticism,  or  even  ridi- 
cule of  neighbours,  or,  alas,  of  the  family  circle.  Jesus 
himself  tasted  that  bitter  cup.  But  Timothy  "was 
well  reported  of  by  the  brethren  that  were  at  Lystra 
and  Iconium"  when  Paul  came.  He  had  apparently 
already  made  a  beginning  in  active  service  for  Christ. 


162  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

These  timorous  first  efforts  were  kindly  received.  In 
writing  to  Timothy  later  on  the  qualifications  of  the 
minister  Paul  will  say,  "Moreover  he  must  have  good 
testimony  from  them  that  are  without,"  I  Tim.  3  17. 
It  is  hard  to  judge  human  nature  at  best  and  one's 
reputation  is  some  guide  to  his  worth,  though  it  alone 
is  not  decisive.  Character  and  reputation,  alas,  do 
not  always  correspond.  But  it  speaks  volumes  for 
Timothy  that  his  neighbours  and  friends  were  so  cor- 
dial in  their  commendation  to  Paul.  Paul  will  one  day 
write  to  Timothy,  "This  charge  I  commit  unto  thee, 
my  child  Timothy,  according  to  the  prophecies  which 
led  the  way  to  thee,  that  by  them  thou  mayest  war  the 
good  warfare,"  I  Tim  I  :i8.  Hymenaeus  and  Alex- 
ander made  shipwreck,  as  so  many  since  have  done, 
of  all  the  blessed  hopes  and  promises  of  youth. 

HIS  FIRST  CAMPAIGN  WITH  PAUL 

Timothy  held  a  subordinate  place  in  the  company 
of  four  (Paul,  Silas,  Timothy,  Luke).  After  Paul 
and  Silas  were  released  from  prison  in  Philippi,  Tim- 
othy remained  awhile  with  Luke.  He  soon  rejoined 
Paul  in  Thessalonica  as  the  bearer  of  gifts  from 
Philippi  to  the  Apostle,  Phil.  4:16,  the  first  help  of  the 
kind  that  came  to  Paul  in  his  great  enterprise,  Phil. 
4:15.  Timothy  and  Silas  remained  in  Beroea  when 
Paul  fled  to  Athens,  Acts  17:14  f.,  but  Paul  sent  word 
for  them  to  come  on  to  Athens.  Timothy  apparently 
did  come,  but  was  sent  back  to  Thessalonica  by  Paul, 
i  Thess.  3:if.,  because  of  disturbances  there  concern- 
ing Paul's  teaching  about  the  second  coming  of  Christ. 
Timothy  and  Silas  later  came  to  Corinth  with  more 


TIMOTHY  THE  FAITHFUL  163 

gifts  from  Philippi  and  also  Thessalonica  and  Beroea, 
2  Cor.  n:8f.;  i  Thess.  3:6;  Acts  18.5.  The  gifts 
were  gracious  and  in  sharp  contrast  to  the  stinginess 
and  slanders  of  the  Corinthians,  and  Paul  was  com- 
forted by  the  glad  tidings  from  Thessalonica  and  "de- 
voted himself  to  the  word/'  Acts  18:5,  with  great 
power.  There  it  will  be  seen  that  Timothy  was  useful 
to  Paul  during  the  great  days  in  Macedonia  and 
Achaia. 

TIMOTHY  IN  CORINTH 

Timothy  was  with  Paul  during  most  of  the  third 
mission  tour.  While  at  Ephesus  the  troubles  at  Cor- 
inth reached  a  crisis.  Paul  had  various  communica- 
tions with  the  Church  at  Corinth  in  an  effort  to  settle 
the  troubles  then.  Finally  he  sent  Timothy,  "For  this 
cause  have  I  sent  unto  you  Timothy,  who  is  my  beloved 
and  faithful  child  in  the  Lord,  who  shall  put  you  in 
remembrance  of  my  ways  which  are  in  Christ,  even  as 
I  teach  everywhere  in  every  church,"  I  Cor.  4:17- 
Meanwhile  he  wrote  i  Corinthians  and  endorsed  Tim- 
othy as  his  personal  representative  with  full  power  to 
speak  authoritatively  for  Paul  as  the  passage  just 
quoted  shows.  Paul  put  his  whole  case  into  the  hands 
of  Timothy.  But  he  was  evidently  afraid  that  Tim- 
only  would  not  be  able  to  harmonise  the  turbulent  fac- 
tions. As  things  stand  in  Corinth  Paul  has  influence 
only  with  the  Pauline  party.  "Now  if  Timothy  come, 
see  that  he  be  with  you  without  fear;  for  he  worketh 
the  work  of  the  Lord,  as  I  also  do;  let  no  man  there- 
fore despise  him.  But  set  him  forward  on  his  journey 
in  peace,  that  he  may  come  unto  me;  for  I  expect  him 
with  the  brethren,"  i  Cor.  i6:iof.  It  seems  plain  that 


164.  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

Paul's  fears  were  well  grounded.  Timothy  came  back 
all  right  to  Ephesus,  but  the  storm  raged  on  in  Corinth, 
and  Paul  sent  Titus  to  see  what  he  could  do.  Titus 
took  hold  with  energy  and  had  great  news  for  Paul 
when  he  met  him  in  Macedonia,  2  Cor.  I2ff. ;  7  :6ff. 
Apparently  the  Judaisers  brushed  Timothy  rudely 
aside  as  a  stripling.  Later  Paul  will  say  to  Timothy, 
"Let  no  man  despise  thy  youth,"  I  Tim.  4:12,  per- 
haps with  a  recollection  of  the  experience  in  Corinth. 

LOYALTY    IN    ROME 

But  Timothy  was  true  blue  and  gave  Paul  the  best 
that  was  in  him.  He  was  faithful  when  others  flickered. 
Paul,  while  a  prisoner  in  Rome,  was  anxious  to  send 
Timothy  to  Philippi,  for  "ye  know  the  proof  of  him, 
that,  as  a  child  serveth  a  father,  so  he  served  with  me 
in  furtherance  of  the  gospel,"  Phil.  2  :22.  Timothy 
probably  lacked  genius,  but  he  had  goodness.  He 
was  "a  good  minister  of  Jesus  Christ,"  i  Tim.  4:6. 
Timothy  had  his  "deposit"  from  God,  I  Tim.  6:20;  2 
Tim.  1 114.  Paul  was  anxious  that  the  investment 
that  God  had  made  in  Timothy  should  not  be  in  vain, 
so  he  urged  him  to  keep  God's  deposit.  But,  when 
the  test  comes,  Paul  says,  "I  have  no  man  likeminded 
who  will  care  truly  for  your  state.  For  they  all  seek 
their  own,  not  the  things  of  Jesus  Christ,"  Phil.  2  :2of. 
He  could  count  on  Timothy  to  the  limit.  He  could 
trust  him  anywhere  and  all  the  time.  That  is  loyalty, 
and  loyalty  is  "probably  the  fundamental  trait  in  char- 
acter" (Royce).  Timothy  would  stand  true  when 
others  had  deserted.  Luke,  likewise  loyal,  was  prob- 
ably not  in  Rome  at  this  time. 


TIMOTHY  THE  FAITHFUL  165 

IN   CHARGE  AT  EPHESUS 

After  Paul's  release  from  the  first  Roman  imprison- 
ment, he  went  east,  then  west,  and  then  east  again.  He 
left  Timothy  in  charge  at  Ephesus  on  his  second  visit 
east,  i  Tim.  1 13.  It  was  a  heavy  responsibility  for 
Timothy  to  have  charge  of  the  great  church  in  Ephesus. 
But  he  no  doubt  measured  up  to  it.  Paul  went  on  to 
Macedonia  and  wrote  to  Timothy  a  letter  full  of  in- 
structions for  his  guidance  in  the  work  there.  Appar- 
ently Paul  had  not  had  time  to  go  over  all  the  details 
with  Timothy.  For  this  reason  we  have  i  Timothy, 
which  is  a  rich  storehouse  for  every  minister  to-day. 
There  is  a  wonderful  combination  of  personal  direc- 
tions about  health,  study,  and  piety  along  with  ecclesi- 
astical problems  and  doctrinal  issues.  "Paul  the  aged" 
writes  with  repose  and  grace,  and  yet  with  tenderness 
and  force,  sympathy  and  courage.  He  is  still  grateful 
to  Christ  for  putting  Paul,  himself,  into  the  ministry, 
I  Tim.  i  :i2f.  He  is  anxious  that  Timothy  shall  come 
up  to  the  highest  standard  as  a  good  minister  of  Christ, 
as  a  man  of  God,  brave  and  strong  to  the  end,  i  Tim. 
1:18-20;  3:i4ff. ;  4:6-16;  5:21;  6:11,  2of.  Paul  is 
anxious  concerning  Timothy's  health.  He  apparently 
was  a  nervous  dyspeptic  and  Paul  recommends  "a  little 
wine  for  thy  stomach's  sake  and  thine  often  infirm- 
ities," 5  :23.  There  is  nothing  here  against  the  strictest 
temperance  or  even  prohibition,  for  modern  medical 
skill  has  found  other  things  better  for  the  digestion 
than  the  "little  wine."  But  preachers  in  poor  health 
may  find  comfort  in  the  case  of  Timothy.  He  held  on 
and  did  a  noble  work  in  spite  of  his  physical  infirmities. 


166  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

One  must  not  pride  himself  on  his  poor  health  as  a 
proof  of  piety.  The  poor,  sickly  preacher  may  be  no 
whit  more  pious  than  his  robust,  athletic  brother. 
Titus  was  no  less  pious  than  Timothy  and  more  effec- 
tive, sooth  to  say.  But  the  preacher  with  a  weak  stom- 
ach need  not  despair  of  usefulness. 

LONGED  FOR  BY  PAUL 

Paul  is  in  prison  for  the  last  time.  He  knows  what 
the  outcome  will  be.  He  is  no  longer  in  his  own 
hired  house,  but  in  the  Mamertine  Prison.  Friends 
no  longer  came  to  see  Paul,  for  it  was  now  not 
safe  to  do  so.  Onesiphorus  oft  refreshed  Paul  by  his 
courage  till  he  was  apparently  slain  for  his  daring, 
2  Tim.  i  :i6-i8.  Timothy  is  still  in  Ephesus,  but 
Paul  longs  for  him  to  come  to  him  before  winter,  2 
Tim.  4:21.  He  wishes  him  to  pick  up  John  Mark 
and  bring  him  along  also,  4:11,  for  the  once  useless 
minister  has  now  made  good  and  is  useful  to  Paul 
(Robertson,  "Making  Good  in  the  Ministry").  Paul 
needs  his  cloak  which  he  left  at  Troas  with  Carpus, 
4:13.  But  most  of  all  he  misses  his  books,  especially 
the  parchments,  his  own  books  which  he  had  used 
through  the  years,  his  old  books,  in  particular,  copies 
of  portions  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  perhaps  even 
Mark's  Gospel  and  Luke's  writings.  But,  while  Paul's 
heart  aches  for  the  presence  and  sympathy  of  Timothy, 
he  is  not  unmindful  of  Timothy's  own  needs  in  Ephe- 
sus. This  last  message  of  Paul  is  full  of  courage: 
"For  God  gave  us  not  a  spirit  of  fearfulness  (cow- 
ardice), but  of  power  and  love  and  discipline,"  2 
Tim.  i :/.  He  urges  Timothy  not  to  be  ashamed  of 


TIMOTHY  THE  FAITHFUL  167 

Christ  or  of  Paul,  but  to  suffer  hardships  along  with 
Paul  as  a  good  soldier  of  Christ,  2  Tim.  1 :8;  2  :3-i3- 
Remember  Christ  and  remember  Paul.  He  urges  that 
Timothy  keep  himself  in  trim  for  his  great  task  by 
full  knowledge  of  the  Scriptures,  2:i4f.,  and  by  clean 
living,  2  120-26,  and  so  escape  the  snare  of  the  devil. 
Paul  is  afraid  of  the  devil's  traps  for  preachers.  Im- 
postors must  needs  come,  but  the  man  of  God  must 
know  the  Scriptures  and  be  furnished  completely  unto 
every  good  work,  3:15-17.  The  preacher  does  not 
always  feel  fit  for  his  task,  but  in  season  and  out  of 
season  Timothy  must  preach  the  word  and  not  tickle 
the  itching  ears  of  the  fickle  crowd  with  new  fancies 
and  foibles.  Paul  sees  the  end  of  his  course  and  he 
is  ready  to  go  and  receive  his  crown,  4:6-8.  But  he 
wants  to  see  Timothy  before  the  Lord  Jesus  takes  him 
to  his  heavenly  kingdom. 

IN  PRISON  FOR  PAUL 

It  is  probable  that  Timothy  came  quickly  to  Paul 
and  paid  the  penalty  for  his  courage  by  getting  thrown 
into  prison  himself.  At  any  rate  the  writer  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  says:  "Know  ye  that  our 
Brother  Timothy  hath  been  set  at  liberty,  with  whom, 
if  he  come  shortly,  I  will  see  you,"  Heb.  13:23.  We 
may  suppose  therefore  that  Paul  had  the  comfort  of 
Timothy's  presence  with  him  when  the  end  came. 
Probably  Luke,  Timothy,  and  Mark  were  those  who 
had  the  wonderful  privilege  of  accompanying  Paul  to 
the  place  of  execution  outside  of  Rome.  We  .do  not 
know  the  further  work  of  Timothy.  We  may  be  sure 
that  he  held  true  to  the  last.  He  was  a  man  of  emotion 


168  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

and  sympathy,  for  Paul  spoke  of  his  tears,  2  Tim.  1 14. 
In  all  things  he  was  "an  ensample  to  them  that  believe, 
in  word,  in  manner  of  life,  in  love,  in  faith,  in  purity," 
Tim.  4:12.  He  deserved  Paul's  love  and  confidence. 
Paul  looked  to  him  with  hope  for  the  future.  "And 
the  things  which  thou  hast  heard  from  me  among  many 
witnesses,  the  same  commit  thou  to  faithful  men,  who 
shall  be  able  to  teach  others  also,"  2  Tim.  2  :2.  Thus 
the  good  work  goes  on.  Teach  the  teachers.  Pass  on 
the  teaching.  "Hold  the  pattern  of  sound  words 
which  thou  hast  heard  from  me  in  faith  and  love  which 
is  in  Christ  Jesus,"  2  Tim.  I  :i3. 


CHAPTER  XI 

THOMAS  THE  PREACHER  WITH  HONEST 
DOUBTS 

We  seem  to  be  entering  an  age  of  credulity,  if  one 
thinks  of  the  great  scientist,  Sir  Oliver  Lodge,  as 
a  champion  of  actual  communication  with  the  dead. 
Certainly  we  have  passed  through  an  age  of  criticism 
of  all  that  was  outside  of  the  laws  of  the  physical 
universe  as  known  by  modern  scientists.  The  transi- 
tion has  not  come  suddenly.  Evolution  itself  has 
played  some  part  in  the  change.  It  is  a  long  step  from 
the  cold  materialism  of  Darwin  to  the  militant  spiritu- 
alism of  Lodge.  And  yet  Lodge  is  an  evolutionist. 
The  veil  between  matter  and  mind  has  worn  thin  in 
places,  to  say  the  least,  by  reason  of  new  discoveries 
like  radium,  wireless  telegraphy,  transmutation  of 
metals,  the  breaking  up  of  the  atom  into  electrons, 
Einstein's  theory  of  the  gravitation  of  the  light 
rays.  In  biblical  criticism  we  have  seen  the  same  re- 
lentless search  for  facts.  Tradition  has  stepped  aside 
while  the  scholar,  like  the  scientist  in  the  laboratory, 
put  in  the  crucible  of  criticism  the  cherished  convic- 
tions of  Christendom.  The  books  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment and  of  the  New  Testament  have  been  subjected 
to  the  most  minute  dissection  and  the  most  careful 
literary  analysis.  The  dry  bones  of  redactors  have 
rattled  in  the  place  of  the  mighty  spirits  of  the  Scrip- 

169 


170  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

tures.  We  are  coming  again  to  the  age  of  reconstruc- 
tions and  the  dry  bones  are  beginning  to  take  on  the 
form  of  life.  But,  meanwhile,  many  a  minister  has 
suffered  the  lapse  of  faith  between  the  novelties  of 
criticism  of  the  Bible  and  the  stern  realities  of  inex- 
orable scientific  law.  The  modern  minister  has  wished 
to  face  all  the  facts  of  life  with  open  mind  and  heart. 
He  has  wished  to  be  loyal  to  his  Lord  and  to  be  a 
leader  of  his  fellow  men.  He  has  not  been  desirous 
of  being  an  obscurantist  or  a  reactionary.  It  has  often 
been  the  most  sensitive  spirits  that  have  suffered  most. 
The  passion  for  truth  and  honesty  of  purpose  has 
clashed  with  the  traditions  of  environment.  Some  few 
who  have  been  unable  to  place  the  Christ  of  the  Gospels 
and  of  Paul's  Epistles  in  the  world  of  science  and  of 
criticism  have  either  given  up  the  ministry  or  have 
become  Unitarian  ministers.  Others  have  lived  down 
their  doubts  by  deeper  study  and  by  patient  waiting 
for  further  light  that  has  come  from  Christ  as  it  came 
to  Thomas. 

Thomas  is  the  typical  preacher  who  has  struggles 
with  honest  doubts.  This  is  partly  due  to  tempera- 
ment, but  one  cannot  easily  change  his  temperament 
whether  phlegmatic  or  bilious  or  nervous.  Thomas 
had  his  pessimistic  moods.  He  saw  at  once  and  sharply 
the  difficulties  in  the  way.  He  was  unwilling  to  shut 
his  eyes  to  the  actual  facts  that  confronted  him.  His 
first  reaction  was  despondency.  He  came  through  in 
the  end,  but  he  had  to  fight  his  way  through  the  fog 
and  smoke  to  the  light.  Thomas  was  an  outspoken 
man,  besides,  who  in  a  rather  blunt  manner  spoke  out 
his  mind.  Such  a  man  often  reflects  the  feelings  of 


THOMAS  THE  PREACHER  171 

others  who  receive  credit  for  more  faith  than  they 
really  possess  and  he  also  betrays  more  doubt  than 
he  really  feels.  The  Fourth  Gospel  alone  gives  us 
an  insight  into  the  mind  of  Thomas  as  he  faced  the 
problem  of  Christ  during  Passion  Week  and  afterward. 
Thomas  reveals  the  courage  of  despair  in  John  1 1 :6, 
when  he  proposes  to  his  fellow-disciples,  "Let  us  also 
go,  that  we  may  die  with  him."  Jesus  had  just  said 
that  Lazarus  was  dead.  He  had  suggested  going 
to  Bethany  over  the  protest  of  the  disciples  that  Jesus 
might  be  killed;  for  the  enemies  of  Jesus  had  tried 
to  stone  him  when  he  was  last  in  Jerusalem,  at  the 
feast  of  dedication  (John  10:31).  To  Thomas  it 
seemed  sheer  madness  for  Jesus  to  go  back  into  the 
lions'  den.  Lazarus  was  dead.  The  rulers  will  kill 
Jesus  if  he  goes.  And  yet  Thomas  is  the  man  who 
takes  his  courage  in  his  hands  and  proposes,  not  de- 
sertion of  Jesus,  but  loyalty  to  him  even  unto  death. 
But  he  expects  death  for  all  of  them.  Thomas  is 
willing  to  go  over  the  top,  but  he  anticipates  death 
for  all  of  the  band  in  the  going.  It  may  be  said  that 
this  is  not  the  highest  form  of  courage,  but  it  is  cour- 
age. It  is  not  reckless  daring,  but  the  looking  of  all 
probabilities  in  the  face.  Thomas  does  not  expect 
success.  He  expects  that  the  proposed  visit  to  Bethany 
will  culminate  in  the  death  of  Jesus  and  all  the  twelve. 
He  pleads  that  they  may  all  be  willing  to  make  this 
supreme  sacrifice  for  the  sake  of  the  Master.  It  will 
be  an  end,  to  be  sure,  to  all  their  cherished  hopes  about 
the  Messianic  Kingdom.  They  will  all  have  to  give 
up  their  dreams  of  place  and  power  in  that  kingdom. 
They  will  not  see  Rome  driven  out  of  Palestine  and 


172  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

Jesus  King  in  Jerusalem.  It  is  a  rude  awakening  for 
Thomas.  Doubtless  there  is  an  implied  rebuke  to 
Jesus  in  the  resignation  of  Thomas  to  the  rashness 
of  Christ.  But,  at  any  rate,  he  regards  the  situation 
as  hopeless  in  view  of  the  determination  of  the  Mas- 
ter. 

Ministers  to-day  have  sometimes  found  themselves 
in  a  predicament  where  they  had  lost  heart  and  hope 
in  their  work.  They  whipped  themselves  to  their  task 
with  the  courage  of  despair.  The  onward  march  of 
events  has  been  against  their  predilections  and  preju- 
dices, and  even  their  principles.  Some  of  the  noblest 
of  men  have  had  to  decide  whether  to  "carry  on"  to 
the  end  with  those  who  would  not  heed  their  advice 
or  to  quit  and  be  termed  slackers  or  even  deserters. 
Thomas  was  not  a  quitter  at  any  rate.  He  proposed 
to  see  the  thing  through  even  if  his  gloomiest  fore- 
bodings came  true.  It  is  true  that  some  ministers 
have  found  themselves  out  of  sympathy  with  their  age 
and  unable  to  make  much  of  an  impression  upon  those 
who  had  swept  on  to  other  modes  of  thought.  Who, 
then,  is  the  prophet?  Prophets  have  often  had  to  de- 
nounce their  age.  Jesus  did  precisely  this  thing.  And 
yet  Jesus  was  the  iconoclast  and  did  not  shrink  from 
going  on,  not  till  he  came  to  his  own  Gethsemane.  I 
wish  to  make  a  plea  7or  the  preacher  who  in  a  troubled 
time  has  yet  held  on  to  his  task  in  spite  of  discourage- 
ment and  even  despair.  He  has  held  on  from  the  sense 
of  duty  that  drives  the  soldier  to  the  field  of  battle. 
It  is  easier  to  throw  stones  at  such  a  man  than  to 
stand  in  his  tracks.  This  is  not  to  advocate  the  idea 
that  a  man  who  no  longer  believes  in  the  deity  of  Christ 


THOMAS  THE  PREACHER  173 

should  continue  to  preach  it,  or  to  occupy  an  evangelical 
pulpit  or  theological  chair.  The  courage  of  despair 
is  consistent  with  honest  doubt,  but  not  with  loss  of 
faith  in  Christ.  Courage  calls  for  honesty.  When 
one  has  made  his  choice  firmly  and  clearly  he  should 
take  his  stand.  He  should  not  stay  within  the  lines  and 
fire  at  his  Captain. 

The  next  time  that  Thomas  comes  before  us  is  in 
John  14:1-7.  Here  Thomas  exhibits  the  agnostic  atti- 
tude toward  death  and  the  future  life:  "Lord,  we 
know  not  whither  thou  goest;  how  know  we  the  way?" 
(John  14:5).  This  bold  avowal  of  ignorance  of  the 
future  life  after  death  follows  the  most  intimate,  ten- 
der, and  precious  promise  of  Jesus  that  he  would  come 
again  and  take  them  to  the  Father's  house  and  to  him- 
self in  the  Father's  home.  He  had  urged  faith  in  him- 
self as  in  the  Father  and  had  pointedly  stated  that  the 
disciples  had  grounds  for  confident  fidelity  since  they 
knew  the  place  and  the  way  to  the  new  abode :  "And 
whither  I  go,  ye  know  the  way"  (John  14:4).  It  is 
precisely  at  this  point  that  Thomas  interposes  with 
his  almost  brutal  statement  of  crass  ignorance  about 
both  the  location  of  the  Father's  house  and  the  way 
thereto. 

Once  more  Thomas  is  modern  in  his  outlook  and 
seems  to  voice  the  doubts  of  the  present-day  scientist 
who  scans  the  heavens  in  vain  for  a  planet  that  can 
be  a  fit  abode  for  the  spirits  of  the  blest.  The  myriad 
blazing  suns  of  the  skies  would  seem  more  like  the 
infernal  regions  than  the  home  of  Christ  with  the 
Father.  Thomas  was  frankly  puzzled  as  he  tried  to 
form  an  intellectual  concept  of  the  hope  of  heaven  held 


174  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

out  by  Jesus  in  the  words  that  have  comforted  the  dy- 
ing through  all  the  ages  since  that  night  when  Jesus 
spoke  them.  Thomas  was  face  to  face  with  the  death 
of  Jesus  and  the  blasting  of  all  his  hopes.  He  longed 
for  something  more  than  figures  of  speech.  He  found 
the  age-long  question,  Does  death  end  all?  Jesus  had 
answered  with  the  definite  promise  that  he  would  come 
and  take  the  disciples  to  the  heavenly  home.  But  the 
appeal  to  their  knowledge  gave  Thomas  his  chance  to 
confess  his  real  ignorance.  Many  a  preacher  has 
brought  comfort  to  the  dying  with  the  words  of  Jesus 
who  has  longed  for  more  assurance  in  his  own  heart. 
The  answer  of  Jesus  to  Thomas  is  still  the  best  answer 
to  the  modern  agnostic.  It  is  easy  to  find  fault  with 
those  who  are  driven  by  the  terror  of  death  to  find 
light  in  the  darkened  chambers  of  so-called  mediums. 
I  am  slow  to  believe  that  the  Christian  has  need  to 
resort  to  the  devious  ways  of  paid  professional  medi- 
ums with  all  the  proven  fraud  to  their  credit  and  in- 
anities in  their  so-called  messages.  Jesus  spoke  to 
Thomas  the  word  that  preacher  and  layman  need  to- 
day :  "I  am  the  way,  and  the  truth,  and  the  life :  no 
one  cometh  unto  the  Father  but  by  me"  (John  14:6). 
Turn  from  mediums  to  Jesus.  He  is  the  expression 
of  the  Father  in  human  form.  He  is  the  incarnation 
of  the  truth  about  the  future  life.  He  is,  in  fact,  the 
life  itself,  the  source  of  all  energy  and  power.  He  is 
the  Lord  of  life  and  death.  He  is  the  way  to  the 
Father.  Jesus  is  the  way;  He,  and  not  a  system  of 
science  or  of  theology;  He,  and  not  an  ecclesiastical 
organization ;  He,  and  not  priest  or  medium. 

Materialism  has  had  a  powerful  grip  upon  some 


THOMAS  THE  PREACHER  175 

minds  during  the  nineteenth  century.  There  are  those 
to-day  who  can  find  no  proof  in  the  universe  of  mind 
apart  from  matter,  who  regard  mind  or  spirit  as  a  mere 
brain-function,  who  consider  mind  the  product  of  mat- 
ter, who  hold  that  matter  is  eternal  and  mind  merely 
the  phosphorescent  fire  that  flashes  in  the  darkness 
and  at  death  goes  out  forever.  It  is  not  easy  to  an- 
swer all  the  difficulties  raised  by  materialism.  There 
are  things  to  be  said  that  lead  one  out  and  on  to  the 
spiritual  interpretation  of  the  universe.  Jesus  himself 
has  to  be  accounted  for.  The  spirit  of  man  refuses  to 
believe  that  man  is  a  mere  lump  of  clay.  It  is  not  easy 
to  believe  in  the  eternity  of  matter  that  was  never 
created  and  that  was  always  endowed  with  the  energy  of 
life.  The  upward  trend  of  life  argues  for  the  existence 
of  God.  Evolution  itself  calls  for  a  higher  order 
in  the  universe  than  man's  life  on  earth.  The  agnostic 
can  never  be  wholly  answered.  Thomas  did  not  reply 
to  Jesus,  but  he  had  the  only  real  answer.  It  is 
Jesus.  The  minister  who  loses  his  way  in  life  has 
lost  his  touch  with  Christ.  Jesus  alone  is  the  door 
to  the  temple  of  knowledge.  One  must  try  Jesus. 
Christ  lamented  that  Thomas  had  failed  to  see  the 
Father  in  himself.  There  are  those  who  do  see  God 
in  Christ.  He  is  the  only  path  by  which  men  can  come 
to  God. 

The  next  time  that  we  see  Thomas  in  John's  Gos- 
pel (20:25)  the  other  disciples  are  saying  to  him, 
"We  have  seen  the  Lord."  It  is  a  marvellous  state- 
ment. With  the  rest  Thomas  had  passed  through  the 
gloom  of  that  terrible  Sabbath  day  when  they  had  all 
suffered  the  eclipse  of  faith  that  followed  the  death 


176  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

of  Christ.  The  Cross  had  destroyed  faith  and  hope. 
All  that  they  had  finally  dreamed  and  trusted  was  now 
buried  in  the  tomb  of  Jesus.  Thomas  with  the  other 
disciples  had  heard  the  stories  of  Mary  Magdalene 
and  the  other  women,  but  they  treated  them  as  idle 
tales  of  excitable  women  about  seeing  angels,  and 
in  the  case  of  Mary  Magdalene  as  a  probable  recur- 
rence of  her  demoniacal  possession.  So  Thomas  was 
somewhat  taken  aback  by  the  sudden  avowal  of  faith 
in  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  by  the  very  men  who  had 
so  recently  emphasised  their  disbelief  in  the  reports 
of  the  women.  Evidently  the  disciples  proceeded  to 
give  various  details  about  the  appearance  of  Jesus  on 
that  first  Sunday  night  when  Thomas  was  absent 
(John  20:24).  The  new  converts  were  full  of  faith, 
but  they  lacked  the  power  to  convince  a  sceptic  like 
Thomas,  who  still  had  all  the  sceptic's  distrust  of  super- 
natural phenomena.  Thomas  was  not  to  be  taken  in 
by  ghost  stories.  Finally  he  ended  the  matter  by  say- 
ing, "Except  I  shall  see  in  his  hands  the  print  of  the 
nails,  and  put  my  finger  into  the  print  of  the  nails, 
and  put  my  hand  into  his  side,  I  will  not  believe." 
Here  the  minute  particularity  of  details  shows  that 
Thomas  takes  up  what  the  disciples  had  said.  Thomas 
affirms  that  he  will  not  believe  unless  he  has  the  same 
experience  that  the  disciples  claimed  to  have  had,  with 
the  addition  that  he  wished  to  test  the  sense  of  touch 
as  well  as  that  of  sight.  He  wished  to  handle  this 
ghost  to  learn  if  his  eyes  deceived  him.  This  decision 
seemed  a  hard  one  to  the  disciples,  who  were  full  of 
their  new  faith  and  joy.  And  yet  Thomas  could  reply 
that  there  was  too  much  at  stake  to  have  false  hopes 


THOMAS  THE  PREACHER  177 

revived.  He  had  gone  through  the  collapse  of  his 
hopes.  He  did  not  desire  to  have  another  downfall. 
Besides,  optical  illusions  were  possible.  The  mind 
might  even  project  images  before  the  eyes  like  the 
mirage  of  the  desert.  He  wished  to  have  a  real  sci- 
entific examination  before  he  could  believe. 

It  cannot  be  said  that  Thomas  differed  essentially 
from  the  position  of  the  disciples  before  their  experi- 
ence on  Sunday  night.  True,  he  had  their  testimony 
to  add  to  that  of  the  women.  But  they  signally  failed 
in  the  power  of  convincing  Thomas  of  the  reality 
of  their  experience  as  we  to-day,  alas!  so  often  fail 
to  convince  sceptics  of  the  power  of  Christ.  He  held 
out  longer  than  the  rest,  and  demanded  the  same  proof 
that  they  asserted  had  convinced  them  with  a  certain 
tone  of  superior  intelligence  that  often  goes  with  a 
sceptical  attitude  toward  Christ.  It  is  the  vice  of 
the  professional  sceptic  that  he  assumes  an  air  of  in- 
tellectual arrogance  toward  those  whom  he  considers 
the  dupes  of  their  own  credulity.  Thomas  probably 
prided  himself  on  his  refusal  to  be  carried  away  by 
what  looked  like  a  case  of  nerves  on  the  part  of  both 
men  and  women  who  actually  believed  it  possible  for 
Jesus  to  appear  to  them.  And  yet  Thomas  had  seen 
Lazarus  come  out  of  the  tomb.  Perhaps  he  argued 
that  it  was  Jesus  who  raised  Lazarus  and  now  Jesus 
was  dead.  Besides,  Lazarus  went  on  living  his  old 
life  with  his  human  body.  He  was  not  a  mere  ghost 
who  came  into  a  room  with  closed  doors.  Hence 
Thomas  wished  to  be  able  to  handle  Jesus  before  he 
could  believe  in  his  resurrection. 

Had  Thomas  demanded  too  much?     Have  we  a 


178  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

right  to  make  a  material  test  for  spiritual  phenomena 
and  experiences?  Many  a  man  has  stumbled  right 
here  and  has  not  known  how  far  to  go  and  where 
to  draw  the  line  between  material  science  and  the  things 
of  the  spirit.  But  Thomas  was  not  holding  himself 
aloof  from  the  disciples  because  of  his  scepticism.  We 
do  not  know  why  he  failed  to  be  present  the  first  Sun- 
day night,  when  he  missed  so  much.  If  he  had  known 
that  Jesus  would  come  he  surely  would  have  been  on 
hand.  There  are  those  to-day  who  miss  the  blessing 
because  they  are  not  with  God's  people  when  the  Lord 
makes  bare  the  arm  of  his  power.  It  is  easy  to  expect 
nothing  from  the  gathering  of  the  people  of  God. 
There  was  no  promise  that  Jesus  would  meet  with 
the  disciples  on  the  second  Sunday  night.  But  Thomas 
was  present  this  time.  It  was  not  hard  to  get  him  to 
come.  His  own  curiosity  would  bring  him,  and  he  was 
probably  urged  to  come.  If  anything  out  of  the  way 
happened  he  would  at  least  be  there  so  as  to  form  his 
own  opinions  concerning  what  took  place.  Thomas 
has  the  scepticism  of  inexperience  that  afflicts  so  many 
to-day.  Those  who  have  not  felt  the  power  of  Christ 
in  their  own  lives  may  find  it  hard  to  believe  that 
Christ  touches  the  lives  of  others.  So  Thomas  comes 
to  their  second  gathering  in  a  critical  mood  and  on 
the  watch  against  any  hallucinations  or  clap-trap.  He 
had  not  long  to  wait  before  Jesus  appears,  the  doors 
being  closed  as  before,  and  challenges  the  doubt  of 
Thomas  with  the  words:  "Reach  hither  thy  finger, 
and  see  my  hands :  and  reach  hither  thy  hand,  and  put 
it  into  my  side :  and  be  not  faithless,  but  believing" 
(John  20:27}.  It  was  all  so  sudden  that  the  shock 


THOMAS  THE  PREACHER  179 

upset  Thomas's  programme  of  examination.  He  knew 
the  voice  of  Jesus.  He  knew  that  familiar  and  dear 
face.  There  were  the  outstretched  hands  and  the  side. 
But  Thomas  did  not  put  his  hand  into  that  wounded 
side.  In  a  crisis  faith  has  to  act  and  to  decide.  Faith 
is  higher  than  knowledge.  Faith  has  various  sources 
of  knowledge.  It  uses  the  intellect,  the  affections,  and 
the  will.  The  intellect  is  arrogant  at  times  and  seeks 
to  rule  out  the  affections  and  the  will,  but  they  have 
to  be  heard.  We  must  use  our  intellects,  for  God  gave 
them  to  us.  But  he  also  gave  us  our  affections  and  our 
will.  Thomas  really  understood  no  more  than  he  did 
before  how  Christ  came  into  that  room,  and  how  he 
rose  from  the  dead,  but  here  Jesus  was  and  Thomas 
must  decide  what  to  do  and  at  once.  Thomas  sur- 
renders to  the  Risen  Christ :  "My  Lord  and  my  God" 
(John  20:28). 

This  is  no  mere  exclamation  of  amazement,  as  the 
reply  of  Jesus  shows.  Thomas  gave  Jesus  the  wor- 
ship of  his  heart  and  Jesus  accepted  his  new  faith  and 
loyalty  at  its  face  value.  We  do  not  have  to  say  that 
Thomas  fully  grasped  the  significance  of  his  language 
and  comprehended  how  the  Risen  Christ  is  both  God 
and  man.  Faith  has  risen  above  mere  intellect  ever- 
more. Faith  has  seized  upon  the  heart  of  the  situa- 
tion. The  man  who  has  struggled  with  his  honest 
doubts  has  risen  by  faith  of  experience  to  the  noblest 
confession  in  the  Gospels.  It  is  Thomas  the  doubter, 
the  pessimist,  the  sceptic,  who  has  become  the  man 
of  sublime  faith.  We  may  thank  God  that  it  is  pos- 
sible for  such  a  thing  to  happen.  Jesus  was  patient 


180  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

with  Thomas,  for  he  knew  that  he  was  not  posing  as 
a  sceptic  for  social  prestige,  but  at  heart  really  longed 
to  believe.  He  was  not  occupying  a  false  position,  but 
was  working  toward  the  light.  So  Jesus  met  Thomas 
with  proof  that  won  him.  But  Jesus  puts  no  crown 
on  the  doubt  of  Thomas.  He  rejoices  in  his  new  con- 
viction and  frank  confession,  but  Thomas  has  missed 
the  highest  form  of  faith.  He  had  refused  to  believe 
in  the  Risen  Christ  unless  he  conformed  to  his  own 
test.  He  had  refused  to  believe  the  witness  of  those 
who  had  seen  the  Risen  Christ.  So  Jesus  says :  "Be- 
cause thou  hast  seen  me,  thou  hast  believed:  blessed 
are  they  that  have  not  seen,  and  yet  have  believed" 
(John  20:29).  This  beatitude  Thomas  has  missed. 
It  belongs  to  those  who  will  never  see  with  their  eyes 
Christ  on  earth,  but  who  will  be  satisfied  with  the  testi- 
mony of  the  eyes  of  the  heart.  They  will  reach  up 
the  hands  of  faith  and  will  grasp  the  hidden  hands  of 
Christ.  These  are  the  heroes  of  faith  who  do  not 
make  unreasonable  demands  of  Jesus  in  the  realm 
of  the  Spirit. 

Surely  this  rebuke  to  Thomas  may  be  a  rebuke  to- 
day to  those  who  press  their  scepticism  too  far.  Criti- 
cism and  science  have  their  rights  and  their  duties, 
but  the  intellect  is  not  the  whole  of  man  any  more 
than  the  body  is  the  whole  of  life.  The  kingdom  of 
God  consists  in  love  and  joy  and  peace  and  righteous- 
ness, and  not  in  meat  and  drink.  Peter  heard  Jesus 
speak  this  rebuke  to  Thomas.  And  Peter  will  one  day 
speak  of  Jesus,  "whom  having  not  seen  ye  love;  in 
whom,  though  now  ye  see  him  not,  yet  believing,  ye 


THOMAS  THE  PREACHER  181 

rejoice  with  joy  unspeakable  and  full  of  glory"   (i 
Peter  i  :8).     That  blessed  privilege  is  open  to  every 
believer  to-day  whatever  doubts  may  beset  him. 
can  find  his  way  back  to  Christ— in  whose  face  one 
finds  the  glory  of  God. 


Luke  calls  him  "Philip  the  evangelist  one  of  the 
Seven"  (Acts  21:8).  The  two  epithets  cover  very 
well  what  we  know  of  his  career.  It  is  here  seen  that 
the  Seven  had  come  to  occupy  a  place  to  themselves 
after  the  fashion  of  the  Twelve.  They  were  chosen,  as 
is  shown  in  Acts  6:1-6,  to  relieve  the  Twelve  of  "serv- 
ing tables"  whatever  that  may  mean.  Our  word 
"banker"  means  originally  a  "bencher"  because  the 
money-changers  sat  at  tables.  So  Jesus  overturned 
the  tables  of  the  money-changers  in  the  temple  (John 
2:15).  Thus  to  serve  tables  probably  means  to  at- 
tend to  financial  affairs.  In  the  present  instance  the 
business  concerned  the  distribution  of  the  funds  for 
the  poor  widows  among  the  saints  in  Jerusalem.  The 
Hellenistic  Christian  Jews  of  the  Dispersion  who  were 
in  the  city  complained  that  the  Aramaean  (Palestinian) 
widows  received  more  than  their  share  of  the  money. 
The  Twelve  Apostles  had  supervised  the  equitable  dis- 
tribution of  the  funds.  At  once  they  saw  that  to  con- 
tinue this  duty  would  jeopardise  their  spiritual  func- 
tions and  prejudice  the  Hellenists  against  them.  So 
they  wisely  asked  the  Hellenists  to  choose  seven  of 
their  own  number  for  this  special  task.  This  provision 
would  allow  the  Twelve  freedom  to  devote  themselves 
to  prayer  and  the  ministry  of  the  Word.  It  is  not 

182 


PHILIP  THE  EVANGELIST  183 

certain  that  the  deacons  described  later  in  Phil.  I  :i 
and  I  Tim.  3  are  identical  in  office  with  the  Seven; 
but  all  the  indications  point  that  way.  The  word 
"serve"  (diakoneo)  employed  in  Acts  6:2  and  deacon 
(diakonos}  are  identical  in  root.  One  possible  ety- 
mology derives  the  word  from  dia  and  kortis  (dust), 
meaning  to  raise  a  dust.  Certainly  some  deacons  can 
fill  that  requirement.  The  word  has  a  wider  applica- 
tion in  the  New  Testament  to  ministers  in  general,  and 
all  service  for  Christ.  But  the  office  of  deacon  to 
which  Philip  was  appointed  was  designed  to  relieve 
the  Apostles  (and  elders  a  bit  later)  of  the  more  secu- 
lar phases  of  the  work  of  the  churches. 

So  Philip  began  his  career  as  a  church  official  as 
one  of  the  Seven,  a  deacon.  He  was  a  loyal  sup- 
porter of  Stephen,  the  leader  of  the  Seven,  when 
Stephen  took  the  lead  in  the  aggressive  interpretation 
of  the  spiritual  nature  of  Christianity  as  designed  for 
men  of  all  races.  The  sudden  martyrdom  of  Stephen 
for  this  wider  vision  of  the  mission  of  Christianity 
did  not  frighten  Philip.  The  Twelve  Apostles  had 
aroused  the  bitter  hostility  of  the  Sadducees  by  their 
bold  proclamation  of  the  fact  that  Jesus  had  risen  from 
the  dead  and  the  guilt  of  the  Sanhedrin  from  his  cruci- 
fixion. Stephen  stirred  the  Pharisees  to  fury  by  his 
apparent  denial  of  the  necessity  of  the  Jewish  cere- 
monial law  for  Gentiles.  Philip  took  the  death  of 
Stephen  as  a  challenge  to  his  own  faith  and  courage 
and  did  not  hesitate  to  take  up  the  work  of  Stephen. 
It  remains  one  of  the  puzzles  of  the  early  apostolic 
history  why  the  apostles  did  not  rally  to  the  support 
of  Stephen  and  Philip  in  their  vigorous  campaign. 


184  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

Did  they  feel  that  they  were  going  beyond  the  func- 
tions of  the  Seven?  Or  did  they  think  it  unwise  for 
them  to  antagonise  the  Pharisees  too  much  as  well  as 
the  Sadducees?  Or  did  they  feel  that  the  Seven  were 
going  too  fast  toward  the  Gentiles?  We  have  no 
means  of  answering  these  questions.  We  only  know 
that  Saul's  persecution  finally  drove  all  the  disciples 
out  of  Jerusalem  except  the  apostles.  Stephen  and 
Philip  are  not  the  only  deacons  who  have  taken  to 
preaching.  They  were  set  apart  as  members  of  the 
Seven  (Acts  6:6).  There  is  no  evidence  that  they 
received  any  further  "ordination."  To  the  end  Philip 
is  one  of  the  Seven.  In  modern  ecclesiastical  language 
they  were  lay  preachers  like  D.  L.  Moody.  But  for 
the  moment  Stephen  and  Philip  took  the  lead  in  ag- 
gressive evangelisation. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that  Philip  went  to  Samaria 
as  Luke  tells  us  in  Acts  8,  the  chapter  devoted  to  the 
work  of  Philip.  It  may  have  been  that  he  was  safer 
from  persecution  in  Samaria  than  in  Judaea  or  Galilee 
as  the  Jews  had  no  synagogues  in  Samaria  and  no 
dealings  with  them.  The  Samaritans  had  been  finally 
circumcised,  but  the  Jews  refused  to  consider  them 
as  a  part  of  their  own  people.  They  were  half -Jews 
and  were  all  the  more  cordially  hated  for  that  very 
reason  as  people  to-day  have  an  extra  touch  of  spite 
for  their  own  kindred  in  a  family  fuss.  The  striking 
thing  is  that  Philip  boldly  applied  the  teaching  of 
Stephen  and  followed  the  example  of  Jesus  who  had 
himself  preached  with  marked  success  in  Sychar  (John 
4).  True,  Jesus  had  once  forbidden  the  Twelve  to 
go  into  any  way  of  the  Gentiles  or  into  a  city  of  the 


PHILIP  THE  EVANGELIST  185 

Samaritans  (Matt.  10:5)  while  on  the  special  tour 
of  Galilee.  But,  before  he  ascended  on  high,  he  ex- 
pressly charged  them  to  be  his  witnesses  in  Judaea  and 
Samaria  and  the  uttermost  part  of  the  earth  (Acts 
1 :8).  It  is  possible,  as  one  tradition  has  it,  that  Philip 
was  one  of  the  Seventy  sent  forth  also  by  Jesus  (Luke 
10:1-24).  But  Philip,  like  Stephen  and  all  the  Seven, 
was  a  Hellenist  while  the  Twelve  were  all  Palestinians. 
So  he  had  less  difficulty  in  overcoming  race  prejudice. 
He  is  the  first  missionary  of  the  Cross  on  record  who 
carried  the  gospel  message  to  an  alien  race. 

Philip  had  power  with  the  people  as  he  kept  on 
preaching  Christ  to  the  people  of  the  city  of  Samaria. 
The  multitudes  (note  the  plural,  the  crowds)  gave  heed 
to  (held  their  minds  on)  the  things  that  were  spoken 
from  time  to  time  by  Philip.  He  had  caught  their 
ear  and  had  a  hearing  and  they  hung  on  his  words. 
This  they  did  with  one  accord.  He  carried  the  crowd 
with  him  as  they  heard  him  speak  and  watched  the 
signs  that  he  wrought.  Like  Stephen  (Acts  6 :8) 
Philip  wrought  miracles.  Unclean  spirits  were  cast 
out.  Paralytics  were  healed.  The  lame  walked.  It 
was  like  the  days  of  Jesus  on  earth  again  and  in 
Samaria.  "There  was  much  joy  in  that  city."  Per- 
haps the  very  fact  that  Philip  was  persecuted  by  Jews 
and  was  an  exile  from  Jerusalem  made  the  Samaritans 
all  the  more  inclined  to  listen  to  his  message.  And 
then,  too,  the  Samaritans  in  Sychar  had  once  welcomed 
Jesus  while  the  Jews  later  crucified  him. 

The  great  work  of  Philip  in  Samaria  is  all  the  more 
remarkable  in  the  light  of  the  fact  that  they  had  been 
led  astray  by  Simon  Magus,  one  of  the  numerous 


186  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

Jewish  soothsayers  and  exorcists  (cf.  the  seven  sons 
of  Sceva  in  Acts  19  at  Ephesus).  The  Magi  (cf.  the 
visit  of  the  Wise  Men  to  Jerusalem  and  Bethlehem  to 
do  honour  to  the  New-born  King)  were  originally  great 
and  wise  men  of  much  lore  and  insight.  But  as  some 
doctors  are  quacks  and  some  preachers  are  hypocrites, 
some  of  the  Magi  became  magicians  or  tricksters  who 
played  oh  the  ignorance  and  superstition  of  the  masses. 
So  here  this  man  Simon  had  his  repertoire  of  stunts  by 
which  he  fooled  the  people  and  convinced  them  of  his 
claims  to  be  "some  great  one"  (Magus  means  great 
one  originally).  He  continually  astonished  the  people 
by  his  new  "powers"  and  held  the  population  in  awe 
from  the  smallest  to  the  greatest.  He  was  almost  wor- 
shipped as  "the  Power  of  God  that  is  called  Great." 
It  is  pathetic,  really  tragic,  to  see  how  otherwise  intelli- 
gent men  can  become  the  victims  of  charlatans  in  re- 
ligion and  in  politics.  Even  Sergius  Paulus  was  under 
the  spell  of  Elymas  Barjesus  in  Cyprus  and  many  a 
modern  man  has  sought  communication  with  spooks 
by  the  help  of  mediums  in  darkened  chambers  like 
Saul  with  the  Witch  of  Endor.  In  our  own  time  Mrs. 
Eddy  has  claimed  to  be  some  "great  one"  superior 
to  Jesus  Christ  and  some  have  followed  her  hallucina- 
tions as  Alexander  Dowie  has  founded  a  -city  on  his 
own  absurdities.  But  Philip  broke  the  spell  of  the 
power  of  Simon  Magus  over  the  people.  Simon  saw 
that  his  "power"  was  gone.  He  was  a  fallen  idol. 
At  once  he  himself  became  a  follower  of  Philip  in 
order  to  get  the  benefit  of  the  new  "cult"  which  had 
put  him  out  of  business.  Luke  records  that  "Simon 
himself  believed  and  was  baptised  and  kept  close  to 


PHILIP  THE  EVANGELIST  187 

Philip  and  beholding  the  signs  and  great  powers  tak- 
ing place  continued  amazed."  This  language  tells 
the  secret  as  the  sequel  makes  plain  enough.  Simon 
"believed"  that  he  wanted  what  Philip  had.  He  sub- 
mitted to  baptism  as  a  magical  rite  akin  to  those  in 
the  various  cults  of  the  times.  He  thought  that,  if 
he  were  baptised,  he  himself  would  be  able  to  work 
the  wonders  that  Philip  continued  to  perform.  But, 
somehow  the  "power"  did  not  come  to  Simon.  So  he 
kept  close  on  the  heels  of  Philip  to  see  if  he  could 
catch  on  to  the  particular  spell  or  incantation  by  which 
he  supposed  the  miracles  to  be  wrought.  He  is  the 
typical  case  of  the  man  who  joins  the  church  for  what 
he  can  get  out  of  it  and  without  any  spiritual  experi- 
ence of  grace  or  change  of  heart.  Baptism  to  Simon 
was  not  a  symbol  of  the  grace  already  received,  but  a 
magical  means  of  obtaining  the  power  to  work 
miracles. 

It  is  small  wonder  that,  when  the  apostles  in  Jerusa- 
lem heard  that  Samaria  had  received  the  gospel,  they 
sent  at  once  Peter  and  John  to  investigate  the  situation. 
The  Samaritans,  as  already  stated,  had  been  circum- 
cised and  so  could  not  be  treated  as  heathen  in  the 
spread  of  the  gospel.  And  yet  race  prejudice  and 
race  hatred  .made  .it  wise  for  the  apostolic  leaders  to 
look  the  situation  over  to  avoid  trouble  in  Jerusalem. 
Peter  is  the  very  one  who  later  had  the  vision  on  the 
housetop  at  Joppa  and  who  preached  to  Cornelius  and 
his  family  in  Caesarea  and  had  these  Romans  bap- 
tised and  who  was  called  to  account  by  the  Pharisaic 
element  in  the  church  in  Jerusalem.  John  was  one 
(James  the  other,  Luke  9:54)  who  wanted  to  call 


188  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

down  fire  from  heaven  to  consume  a  Samaritan  village 
that  would  not  receive  Jesus  because  his  face  was  set 
toward  Jerusalem.  And  in  Jerusalem  one  of  the  mean- 
est things  that  his  enemies  could  say  of  him  was  that 
he  was  a  Samaritan  and  had  a  demon  (John  8:48). 
But  here  both  Peter  and  John  approve  the  work  of 
Philip,  a  tribute  to  the  skill  with  which  Philip  had 
carried  on  his  work,  and  they  prayed  that  the  converts 
might  receive  the  Holy  Spirit.  Philip  was  not  hyper- 
sensitive or  jealous  and  was  apparently  glad  to  see 
Peter  and  John.  One  recalls  how  later  Barnabas  was 
sent  from  Jerusalem  to  investigate  the  conversion  of 
the  Greeks  in  Antioch  in  Syria  and  how  he  remained 
with  joy  till  the  work  was  well  established. 

The  outpouring  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  Samaria  was 
virtually  a  Samaritan  Pentecost  distinct  from  con- 
version and  apparently  accompanied  by  speaking  with 
tongues  as  in  Jerusalem  and  at  Caesarea.  Suddenly 
Simon  Magus  "saw"  a  great  light  and  felt  that  at 
last  he  had  caught  on  to  the  incantations  of  laying  on 
of  hands,  provided  it  would  work  for  him  as  it  did  for 
Peter.  So  he  boldly  offered  Peter  money  for  his  gift, 
treating  him  as  a  fellow  conjurer  who  was  out  for 
the  money.  It  was  an  intolerable  affront  and  Peter 
scorned  him  and  his  money  and  warned  him  that  he 
was  in  the  gall  of  bitterness  and  the  bond  of  iniquity, 
without  part  or  lot  in  this  thing,  with  a  crooked  heart 
before  God.  His  belief  and  baptism  were  a  mere 
cloak  to  make  merchandise  of  the  gift  of  God.  There 
is  no  doubt  that  Simon  was  a  consummate  hypocrite 
and  deserved  the  anathema  of  Peter.  There  is  no 
evidence  of  a  real  change  of  heart  in  him.  His  very 


PHILIP  THE  EVANGELIST  189 

name  is  forever  coupled  with  the  crime  of  trying  to 
purchase  religious  preferment  and  it  is  called  simony. 
He  was  ranked  as  the  first  great  heresiarch  of  early 
Christianity  and  legend  is  busy  with  his  name  in  the 
Clementine  Epistles.  The  germs  of  the  later  Gnos- 
ticism appear  in  his  claims  and  pretensions. 

Philip  stands  forth  as  a  man  led  of  God  in  the 
special  mission  to  the  eunuch  of  Ethiopia.  He  is  here 
a  prophet  like  Elijah  or  Elisha  who  is  seized  by  the 
Spirit  of  God  and  led  forth  to  do  God's  will.  The 
Christian  preacher  does  not  claim  to  have  the  same 
overwhelming  and  clear  guidance,  but  he  is  never  sure 
and  powerful  when  he  is  out  of  touch  with  God. 
The  God-called  and  God-filled  man  is  the  one  who  has 
the  message  for  men  to-day.  If  we  kept  our  hearts 
open  for  God's  voice,  we  might  hear  the  still,  small 
voice  of  the  Master. 

The  task  assigned  to  Philip  is  not  easy.  He  is  to 
go  and  evangelise  one  man  of  great  prominence.  He 
is  not  a  Jew,  but  probably  a  proselyte  of  the  gate  who 
has  been  to  worship  at  the  temple  in  Jerusalem.  But 
it  is  always  difficult  to  know  how  to  handle  the  indi- 
vidual case  with  its  own  peculiar  problems.  Great 
preachers  sometimes  fail  just  here.  But  most  men 
are  won  to  Christ  in  precisely  this  way,  one  by  one. 
Moody  and  Broadus  have  said  that  they  knew  of  more 
conversions  in  their  own  experience  from  conversation 
than  from  preaching,  great  preachers  as  they  were. 
Philip  did  not  hesitate,  but  went  on  and  trusted  for 
the  opening  to  come.  He  soon  had  it  for  the  eunuch 
was  reading  aloud  in  Isaiah  53.  Soon  Philip  was 
preaching  Jesus  from  that  scripture.  He  had  no 


190  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

hesitation  in  finding  the  Messiah  in  Isaiah  as  Jesus 
had  none.  The  eunuch  was  converted  and  asked  for 
baptism  as  soon  as  water  was  reached  and  Philip  bap- 
tised him.  He  had  evidently  spoken  of  baptism  in 
his  exposition  of  the  gospel  message.  There  was  no 
church  at  hand,  but  Philip  did  not  hesitate  to  baptise 
the  new  convert  as  Peter  had  the  household  of  Cor- 
nelius baptised  in  Caesarea.  Ecclesiastical  problems 
amount  to  little  in  a  time  like  that.  Here  was,  besides, 
a  Gentile  converted  and  baptised  who  went  on  his 
way  rejoicing  and  who  probably  took  the  message  of 
eternal  life  with  him  to  Ethiopia  as  the  first  mission- 
ary to  the  heathen.  No  stir  was  raised  in  Jerusalem 
over  the  case  of  the  eunuch  because  Philip  did  not  go 
to  Jerusalem,  but  went  to  Azotus  and  then  to  Caesarea 
where  he  made  his  home.  But  he  preached  as  he  went 
and  evangelised  the  cities  of  the  plain  on  the  way.  He 
deserves  the  title  of  the  Evangelist. 

It  is  over  twenty  years  before  we  hear  of  Philip 
again.  Paul  is  on  his  way  to  Jerusalem  for  the  last 
time.  Paul  and  Luke  with  the  rest  of  the  party  reach 
Caesarea  on  their  way  to  Jerusalem  to  take  the  money 
from  the  Gentile  churches  to  the  poor  saints  in  Jerusa- 
lem. They  stop  at  Caesarea  as  guests  of  Philip  and 
his  four  daughters  who  are  prophetesses,  a  wonderful 
home  of  Christian  activity,  a  dynamo  of  spiritual 
energy.  It  is  plain  that  Luke  made  full  use  of  his  op- 
portunity in  this  home  at  this  time  and  later  when 
Paul  is  a  prisoner  in  Caesarea  to  obtain  data  for  the 
early  part  of  Acts.  But  it  was  a  strange  meeting  of 
rich  and  varied  reminiscences  for  Paul  and  Philip. 
Paul  was  the  leader  in  the  persecution  that  killed  Ste- 


PHILIP  THE  EVANGELIST  191! 

phen  and  that  drove  out  Philip  the  successor  of 
Stephen.  And  now  Paul  and  Philip  meet  again  after 
long  years  of  service  in  carrying  on  the  work  of 
Stephen  and  taking  the  gospel  to  the  Gentiles.  Philip 
was  the  first  messenger  to  cross  the  Jewish  border  with 
the  story  of  Christ  for  those  not  Jews.  Paul  is  the 
chosen  vessel  of  Christ  to  the  Gentile  world.  They 
have  much  in  common  and  one  is  bound  to  think  that 
these  days  in  Csesarea  were  full  of  fellowship  and  joy. 

There  are  various  legends  as  to  what  Philip  and  his 
daughters  did  when  the  war  with  Rome  broke  out  in 
A.  D.  65.  It  began  in  Caesarea.  We  may  be  sure 
that  they  left  in  time  and  that  they  were  useful  else- 
where. 

The  space  given  Philip  in  Acts  by  Luke  is  not 
great,  but  it  is  enough  to  make  a  clear  picture  of  one 
of  the  finest  figures  in  Christianity.  He  was  worthy 
of  the  friendship  of  Stephen  and  of  Paul  and  of  Luke, 
as  well  as  of  Peter  and  John.  He  was  not  responsible 
for  the  imposture  of  Simon  Magus.  Many  another 
preacher  has  been  taken  in  by  designing  men  and 
women  who  have  sought  to  insinuate  themselves  into 
place  and  power  by  church  connection  and  even  by  the 
use  of  the  pulpit.  One  is  not  omniscient  and  cannot 
always  read  the  human  heart,  but  time  sets  things 
straight  and  the  hypocrite  is  revealed.  Philip  was  rich 
in  his  gifted  daughters  who  did  not  stand  alone  among 
women  in  the  first  century  who  bore  noble  witness  to 
the  power  of  Christ  to  save  women  and  to  enrich  all 
that  is  high  and  holy  in  womanhood. 


CHAPTER  XIII 

MATTHEW  THE  BUSINESS  MAN  IN  THE 
MINISTRY 

It  is  now  a  live  question  in  many  of  the  churches 
how  to  obtain  suitable  preachers.  In  some  sections  the 
supply  of  ministers  seems  to  be  keeping  up  with  the 
increasing  demand  while  in  others  there  is  a  distressing 
shortage  of  young  preachers  in  the  schools.  The  rea- 
sons for  the  decrease  on  the  whole  are  varied.  The 
Y.  M.  C.  A.  now  makes  a  strong  pull  for  many  of  the 
finest  young  men.  The  foreign  field  has  an  increasing 
appeal  for  the  noblest  spirits  in  the  colleges.  Some 
young  men  find  difficulty  in  reconciling  the  old  faith 
with  the  new  learning  and  drift  into  other  callings. 
Some  of  the  men  with  the  new  knowledge  lack  the  con- 
viction and  the  loyalty  to  Jesus  as  Lord  and  Saviour 
and  so  find  themselves  without  a  message  and  soon 
without  an  audience.  There  are  always  a  certain  num- 
ber of  failures  in  the  ministry  as  in  everything  else. 
Quite  a  number  break  down  under  the  stress  and  strain 
of  the  modern  minister's  life.  Meanwhile  the  churches 
are  growing  and  clamour  for  more  ministers  of  the 
highest  type  of  character  and  efficiency. 

It  is  always  profitable  to  go  back  to  the  beginning 
of  things.  In  our  organized  Christianity  we  have 
naturally  come  to  look  to  the  schools  for  the  training 
of  the  ministry.  But  it  is  actually  true  in  some  in- 

192 


MATTHEW  THE  BUSINESS  MAN         193 

stances  that  the  educated  preacher  comes  out  unfitted 
for  the  active  ministry.  At  any  rate  it  is  well  to  under- 
stand that  the  churches  are  not  wholly  dependent  on 
the  schools  for  ministers,  necessary  as  the  schools  are. 
God  raises  up  men  to  meet  special  emergencies.  Jesus 
taught  the  disciples  to  pray  for  more  labourers  to  enter 
the  harvest.  Certainly  there  has  not  been  enough 
prayer  in  the  churches  for  God-sent  men.  God  is  the 
real  source  of  supply  for  preaching  of  the  gospel  of 
grace.  All  else  is  secondary. 

It  is  always  possible  for  business  men  to  enter  the 
ministry.  England  has  a  large  and  useful  number  of 
lay-preachers  who  carry  on  their  business  during  the 
week  arid  preach  on  Sundays.  Some  of  these  give 
their  whole  time  to  preaching  and  at  their  own  charges 
if  necessary.  D.  L.  Moody  always  considered  himself 
a  layman,  because  he  was  not  ordained,  though  one 
of  the  greatest  evangelists  of  the  ages.  He  was  a 
successful  business  man.  He  gave  up  the  shoe-busi- 
ness to  go  into  the  soul-saving  business.  He  carried 
his  business  attitude  and  habits  into  the  service  of  win- 
ning souls  to  Christ.  Successful  business  men  need 
not  be  overlooked  as  a  source  of  ministerial  supply. 

Jesus  did  not  overlook  them.  He  called  a  whole 
firm  of  fishermen  to  leave  their  business  and  follow 
him.  James  and  John  were  partners  with  Simon  and 
Andrew  (Luke  5:7-10).  At  the  call  of  Christ  these 
men  all  left  their  business  and  devoted  the  rest  of  their 
lives  to  work  for  Christ  (Mark  i :  17-20;  Luke  5:11). 

But  the  most  striking  instance  of  the  business  man 
who  entered  the  ministry  is  Matthew  (Matt.  9:9),  the 
publican  who  sat  at  the  place  of  toll  on  the  road  that 


191  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

led  from  Damascus  to  Acre  by  the  north  end  of  the 
Sea  of  Galilee  at  the  border  between  the  territory  of 
Herod  Philip  and  of  Herod  Antipas.  Mark  (2:14) 
terms  this  man  "Levi  the  son  of  Alphaeus"  while  Luke 
(5:27)  calls  him  "a  publican  by  name  Levi."  Evi- 
dently the  man  had  two  Jewish  names,  Levi  and  Mat- 
thew like  Simon  Cephas  (Peter).  Probably  Levi  was 
his  original  name  and  Matthew  (Aramaic  "Gift  of 
Jehovah"  like  the  Greek  "Theodore")  while  Matthew 
may  have  been  a  later  name  (nickname  as  a  term 
of  endearment  or  appreciation)  after  he  entered  the 
ministry.  At  any  rate  in  the  lists  of  the  Twelve  Apos- 
tles he  is  always  called  Matthew  and  "Matthew  the 
publican"  in  Matt.  10:3.  He  stands  seventh  in  Mark 
and  Luke  and  eighth  in  Matthew  and  Acts. 

His  business  was  perfectly  legitimate  in  itself,  in 
fact  necessary.  Customs  officers  and  tax  collectors  are 
proverbially  unpopular  and  arouse  a  certain  amount 
of  prejudice  because  of  the  business.  The  Jews  re- 
sented the  payment  of  tribute  to  Rome  and  disliked  any 
Jew  who  undertook  to  collect  the  duty  for  Rome. 
Matthew  was  technically  an  officer  under  Herod  An- 
tipas, but  he  incurred  the  dislike  for  his  class.  "Publi- 
cans and  sinners"  had  come  to  be  grouped  together  as 
of  a  piece.  In  many  cases  the  publicans  were  guilty 
of  graft  and  oppression  as  John  the  Baptist  charged 
(Luke  3  :i3).  Matthew  was  not  a  chief  publican  like 
Zacchseus  (Luke  19:2)  who  farmed  out  a  district 
with  other  publicans  employed  under  him.  Matthew 
simply  had  his  customs  office  near  Capernaum  and 
examined  the  goods  of  those  who  passed  along  the 
highway  and  collected  the  dues. 


MATTHEW  THE  BUSINESS  MAN         195 

To  do  this  work  he  had  to  know  both  Greek  and 
Aramaic  and  he  needed  a  certain  amount  of  business 
ability,  a  quick  and  ready  turn  for  financial  exchange 
and  accurate  accounts.  Matthew  would  receive  the 
scorn  of  Pharisees  because  of  his  constant  associa- 
tion with  the  Gentiles  and  the  common  run  of  the  Jews. 
Besides,  he  would  be  compelled  to  violate  the  rules  of 
the  Pharisees  concerning  Sabbath  observance.  Jesus 
himself  spoke  of  the  publicans  and  harlots  as  social 
outcasts  (Matt.  21:31).  Matthew  would  not  seem 
to  be  very  promising  material  for  a  preacher,  least  of 
all  for  one  of  the  Twelve  Apostles.  It  would  be  like 
looking  for  a  saloon  keeper  to  become  a  minister. 

And  yet  one  day  in  the  midst  of  a  great  crowd  com- 
ing and  going,  while  Jesus  was  teaching  them  (Mark 
2:13-14)  and  while  Matthew  was  very  busy  collecting 
the  toll  from  the  passing  throng,  the  Master  suddenly 
said  to  the  publican:  "Follow  me"  (Mark  2:14). 
The  tense  used  (present  imperative  and  so  linear  ac- 
tion) means  to  keep  on  following  forever.  Matthew 
understood  at  once  that  it  was  a  call  to  quit  the  cus- 
toms office  to  go  on  the  road  with  Jesus.  Why  did 
the  demand  of  Jesus  make  an  appeal  to  Matthew?  It 
is  quite  probable  that  Matthew  had  already  heard  of 
the  fame  of  Jesus  who  now  made  Capernaum  his  head- 
quarters (Mark  1:21;  2:1).  The  Sabbath  in  Caper- 
naum when  the  mother-in-law  of  Peter  was  healed 
closed  with  a  great  crowd.  "All  the  city  was  gathered 
together  at  the  door"  (Mark  1 :33).  It  is  possible  that 
Matthew  was  in  that  throng.  The  quick  decision  of 
Matthew  argues  for  the  conclusion  that  he  had  previ- 
ously faced  the  problem  of  Jesus.  Now  he  took  the 


196  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

great  stand  in  the  open  and  made  that  tremendous  de- 
cision. As  a  rule  in  conversion  the  final  step  is  taken 
after  a  great  deal  of  consideration  in  one  way  or  an- 
other. Sermons,  conversations,  reading  the  Bible,  sor- 
row, joy,  sickness,  death  may  all  have  contributed  to 
the  moment  of  decision.  But  even  so  the  step  is  usu- 
ally taken  under  the  pressure  of  urgent  invitation. 
When  Jesus  said  to  Philip:  "Follow  me"  (John 
1 143),  Philip  instantly  obeyed  because  he  "was  from 
Bethsaida,  of  the  city  of  Andrew  and  Peter"  ( 1 144) . 
We  follow  the  example  of  others  whom  we  know  and 
love. 

It  was  not  easy  for  Matthew  to  yield  to  the  com- 
mand of  Jesus  in  spite  of  the  charm  of  the  Master 
for  men.  Matthew  had  no  other  means  of  livelihood 
so  far  as  we  know.  Jesus  was  an  itinerant  rabbi  with 
no  fixed  income.  For  the  moment  he  was  the  popular 
idol,  but  one  could  not  know  how  long  it  would  con- 
tinue to  be  so.  Matthew  himself  came  from  a  class 
that  was  taboo  with  the  religious  leaders  of  the  time. 
His  coming  would  apparently  embarrass  Jesus  and 
not  help  him.  But  he  took  his  stand  for  Jesus  openly 
and  boldly.  He  rose  up  and  followed  Jesus  then  and 
there  (aorist  tense  in  Mark  2:14  and  Matt.  9:9)  and 
he  kept  on  following  him  (imperfect  tense  in  Luke 
5  128 ).  Matthew  was  not  a  quitter.  He  had  counted 
the  cost.  He  "left  all,"  Luke  adds.  Jesus  does  not 
demand  that  every  business  man  give  up  his  business 
and  enter  the  ministry.  But  he  does  ask  that  of  some. 
A  successful  business  man  cannot  assume  that  he  is 
not  to  receive  a  call  to  become  a  preacher.  His  very 
success  in  business  may  be  one  of  his  qualifications 


MATTHEW  THE  BUSINESS  MAN         197 

for  the  ministry.  It  used  to  be  said  that  preachers  were 
not  good  business  men,  but,  if  the  average  business 
man  had  to  support  his  family  on  the  income  of  the 
average  preacher,  he  would  be  slow  to  make  that  state- 
ment. And  certainly  modern  business  men  feel  as 
never  before  the  need  of  preachers  to  help  them  apply 
the  teaching  of  Jesus  to  the  economic  problems  of  the 
world.  The  Wall  Street  Journal  openly  affirms  that 
the  greatest  need  of  the  business  world  to-day  is  more 
religion  and  righteousness.  Business  men  in  the  min- 
istry would  help  greatly  in  making  a  bond  of  contact 
between  Christianity  and  business. 

Matthew  not  only  took  a  public  stand  for  Jesus 
before  the  business  men  of  his  day.  He  made  a  strong 
appeal  to  his  business  associates  to  become  disciples  of 
Jesus.  "And  Levi  made  a  great  reception  for  him  in 
his  house  :  and  there  was  a  great  multitude  of  publicans 
and  of  others  who  were  reclining  at  meat  with  them" 
(Luke  5:29).  Luke  makes  it  plain  that  it  was  the 
house  of  Levi  and  not  of  Jesus  as  the  language  of 
Mark"  2:15  and  Matthew  9  :io  allows.  But  Mark  and 
Matthew  note  that  the  crowd  of  "others"  were  "sin- 
ners." Mark  explains  that  many  sinners  "were  fol- 
lowing" Jesus.  Matthew  asserts  that  "many  publicans 
and  sinners  came  and  reclined  with  Jesus  and  his  dis- 
ciples." But  Luke  makes  it  clear  that  Matthew  in- 
vited the  crowd  of  "publicans  and  sinners,"  social  out- 
casts like  himself,  his  own  friends  and  associates. 
Some  of  these  "sinners"  may  have  come  uninvited. 
It  is  possible  that  Matthew  may  have  accumulated  a 
little  money.  At  any  rate  he  was  anxious  to  show 
his  colours.  The  only  people  who  would  accept  an  in- 


198  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

vitation  to  a  reception  were  his  own  acquaintances  and 
associates.  The  courage  of  Matthew  is  beyond  all 
praise.  So  often  Christian  business  men  are  shy  in 
their  testimony  for  Christ  when  they  make  a  loud  noise 
in  business  circles.  Matthew  wanted  his  old  friends 
to  meet  Jesus.  He  was  sure  that  they  also  would  like 
him.  It  is  plain  also  that  Jesus  was  already  known 
as  willing  to  mingle  with  these  social  outcasts  for 
they  eagerly  gathered  round  Jesus  and  gladly  accepted 
Levi's  invitation. 

Matthew  was  willing  to  incur  ridicule  for  Jesus. 
The  scribes  and  the  Pharisees  noticed  the  big  crowd 
at  the  house  of  Levi  the  publican.  They  were  already 
showing  an  interest  in  the  teachings  of  Jesus  as  a 
rival  for  popular  favour  ( Mark  1 :22 ) .  They  were  not 
themselves  invited  by  Levi  and  they  would  have 
spurned  his  invitation  if  it  had  been  extended.  But 
they  had  no  hesitation  in  standing  outside  the  house 
and  making  remarks  about  the  conduct  of  Jesus  in 
eating  with  publicans  and  sinners.  "Why  does  your 
teacher  eat  with  publicans  and  sinners?"  (Matt.  9:11). 
They  clearly  mean  to  imply  that  their  teachers  would 
be  ashamed  to  eat  with  such  people.  Take  notice  that 
"they  were  murmuring"  (Luke  5:30).  It  was  like 
the  buzz  of  bees.  This  pointed  criticism  in  public 
was  embarrassing  to  Matthew  who  had  given  the  feast. 
There  was  nothing  that  he  could  say,  for  the  crowd 
of  publicans  and  sinners  were  his  invited  guests.  The 
disciples  did  not  feel  like  speaking  though  the  question 
was  addressed  to  them.  Jesus  took  up  the  criticism 
and  made  a  pointed  rejoinder  that  is  given  verbatim  by 
all  the  Synoptic  Gospels:  "The  well  have  no  need  of 


MATTHEW  THE  BUSINESS  MAN         199 

a  physician,  but  the  unwell."  It  is  not  hard  to  imagine 
the  electric  effect  of  this  piercing  saying  of  Jesus. 
Jesus  was  already  the  great  Physician  of  body  and 
soul.  Surely  the  publicans  and  sinners  needed  the 
physician  of  souls.  The  Pharisees  and  scribes  posed 
as  physicians  of  souls,  but  they  dodged  the  very  peo- 
ple most  in  need  of  their  services.  Jesus  had  a  further 
word  for  them  :  "But  go  and  learn  what  this  means : 
I  desire  mercy  and  not  sacrifice"  (Matt.  9:13).  This 
was  a  thrust  at  the  whole  fabric  of  Pharisaism.  The 
sarcasm  of  Christ  appears  in  his  closing  word:  "For 
I  have  not  come  to  call  righteous  folks,  but  sinners  to 
repentance"  (Luke  5:32).  He  took  them  at  their 
own  estimate  as  "righteous"  and  brushed  them  aside. 
They  were  intermeddlers  at  Levi's  reception  and  in 
the  work  of  Christ.  Certainly  Matthew  would  ap- 
preciate the  powerful  word  of  defence  from  his  new 
Friend  and  Lord.  Matthew  was  getting  his  first  ex- 
perience of  that  public  criticism  that  every  preacher 
must  endure  who  does  anything  worth  while.  The 
preacher  has  to  learn  how  to  take  criticism,  to  profit 
by  it,  to  throw  off  much  of  it,  to  go  on  with  his  work 
in  spite  of  Madame  Grundy.  "They  say?"  "Let  them 
say." 

We  have  no  reason  to  think  that  Matthew  was  a  man 
of  unusual  gifts.  Certainly  he  had  not  spectacular 
gifts  that  made  him  an  outstanding  figure  in  the  new 
circle  of  Christ's  disciples.  He  was  not  called  on  this 
occasion  to  be  one  of  the  Twelve  Apostles,  but  to  join 
the  group  of  four  fishermen  who  were  already  follow- 
ing Jesus  (Andrew  and  Simon,  James  and  John). 
Two  others  (Philip  and  Nathanael-Bartholomew)  had 


200  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

already  cast  in  their  lot  with  Christ  and  the  four.  Five 
of  these  seven  had  been  business  men  and  that  may 
have  been  true  also  of  Philip  and  Nathanael.  But 
the  absence  of  any  particular  mention  of  Matthew 
apart  from  the  rest  in  the  later  story  in  the  Gospels 
indicates  that  he  was  on  a  level  with  the  group  as  a 
whole  and  not  a  genius  and  not  a  distinctive  leader. 
He  was  not  clamorous  for  the  first  place  in  the  Twelve 
as  were  James  and  John,  Peter,  and  Judas  Iscariot. 
But  Matthew  can  at  any  rate  be  credited  with  the 
quality  of  steadiness  and  steadfastness.  He  apparently 
had  not  been  a  follower  of  the  Baptist  as  the  six  first 
had  been.  He  was  then  a  newcomer  in  the  circle  and 
would  not  be  likely  to  claim  any  particular  honours  or 
expect  any  special  favours.  The  great  feast  that  he  gave 
in  honour  of  Jesus  was  a  hearty  expression  of  his  grati- 
tude to  the  great  Teacher  and  perhaps  also  in  some  sense 
a  jubilation  or  celebration  of  the  new  departure  in  his 
own  career.  Matthew  had  certainly  made  a  daring 
leap  from  the  post  of  publican  to  that  of  preacher  of 
righteousness.  But  Jesus  knew  that  Matthew  was  a 
publican  when  he  called  him.  He  knew  the  cleavage 
between  the  Pharisees,  the  ceremonial  separatists  of  the 
day,  and  the  publicans  and  sinners  who  outraged  all 
the  social  and  religious  conventions  of  the  Pharisees. 
Jesus  deliberately  took  his  stand  by  the  side  of  "sin- 
ners" who  repented  as  against  the  pride  of  the  self- 
righteous  whose  hearts  were  full  of  hate  for  the  down- 
trodden among  men. 

It  is  not  certain  that  Matthew  comprehended  fully 
the  significance  of  the  spiritual,  moral,  and  social 
revolution  of  which  he  was  a  part.  He  was  called  upon 


MATTHEW  THE  BUSINESS  MAN         201 

to  play  a  not  ignoble  part  in  the  great  drama  of  all 
time.  For  one  thing  he  had  to  prove  the  wisdom  of 
Christ  in  calling  a  publican  instead  of  a  Pharisee.  He 
had  to  overcome  by  a  clean  and  straight  life  in  the 
sharpest  and  bluntest  criticism.  His  own  life  in  all 
probability  had  not  been  above  reproach.  He  had 
most  likely  lived  up  to  the  reputation  of  his  class  as 
an  oppressor  of  the  poor  and  as  a  grafter.  This  he 
had  to  overcome  by  a  clean  and  straight  life  in  the 
open.  Jesus  tested  Matthew  by  some  months  of  con- 
stant fellowship  and  service  with  the  other  six.  Mat- 
thew came  to  understand  better  what  lay  ahead  of  him. 
So  it  came  to  pass  that  after  a  night  of  prayer  in  the 
mountain  Jesus  came  down  to  a  lower  plateau  and 
chose  the  twelve  men  whom  he  named  apostles  who 
were  to  be  his  cabinet  of  co-workers  for  the  king- 
dom of  God.  He  chose  "Matthew  the  publican"  in 
that  fateful  number  of  men  on  whom  so  much  de- 
pended. As  a  general  rule  it  is  wise  for  any  man  to 
have  some  testing  or  trial  before  he  fully  launches  into 
the  ministry  of  Christ.  It  is  not  always  an  easy  thing 
to  manage  for  the  churches  are  usually  shy  of  a  novice 
in  the  ministry.  A  man  cannot  learn  to  preach  without 
preaching.  He  must  practise  on  somebody.  In  the 
case  of  young  men  who  have  to  spend  years  of  prepara- 
tion for  the  work  the  decision  usually  has  to  be  made 
on  the  basis  of  promise  and  faith.  It  is  a  chance  in 
futures  from  the  human  standpoint.  My  own  experi- 
ence as  a  theological  teacher  for  some  thirty-five  years 
may  be  worth  something.  Probably  over  five  thousand 
young  ministers  have  been  in  my  various  classes  dur- 
ing these  years.  I  am  often  asked  what  percentage  of 


202  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

these  students  fail  to  enter  the  ministry.  I  have  kept 
no  accurate  data,  but  my  general  impression  is  that 
the  actual  loss  is  less  than  two  per  cent  of  the  whole. 
To  be  sure,  those  that  come  to  the  theological  seminary 
have  usually  had  high  school  and  college  training. 
Most  of  them  have  already  had  student  pastorates  or 
regular  pastoral  work.  The  love  of  preaching  has 
already  gripped  them.  The  work  in  the  Southern  Bap- 
tist Theological  Seminary  has  deepened  their  love  for 
souls  and  for  soul-winning.  I  am  glad  to  be  able  to 
bear  this  witness  to  the  loyalty  of  the  great  host  of 
the  noblest  of  men  whom  my  life  has  touched  by  the 
grace  and  goodness  of  God.  These  men  have  become 
good  ministers  of  Christ,  in  varying  measure,  to  be 
sure,  but  still  with  honourable  fidelity  and  with  a  meas- 
ure of  the  favour  of  God  upon  their  work.  They  have 
girdled  the  earth  with  lives  of  consecrated  toil  for 
Christ.  I  thank  God  to-day  for  the  holy  and  happy 
memories  connected  with  them.  So  Matthew,  the 
former  publican,  took  his  place  with  the  elect  group 
of  choice  spirits  chosen  by  Jesus  for  fellowship  in 
service,  his  earthly  bodyguard  in  the  midst  of  mis- 
understanding and  relentless  and  increasing  hostility. 
One  other  thing  can  be  affirmed  with  confidence 
concerning  Matthew.  Papias  in  the  well-known  pas- 
sage in  Eusebius  is  quoted  as  saying  that  Matthew 
wrote  Logia  of  Jesus  in  Hebrew  (Aramaic)  which 
each  one  interpreted  as  he  was  able.  Tradition  credits 
him  with  the  authorship  of  our  First  Gospel,  the  can- 
onical Gospel  according  to  Matthew.  The  present 
Gospel  according  to  Matthew  bears  little  mark  of  being 
a  translation  from  Aramaic.  It  seems  to  be  a  free 


MATTHEW  THE  BUSINESS  MAN         203 

composition  in  Greek,  free  at  least  in  the  same  sense 
that  the  Gospel  according  to  Luke  is  free,  with  the  evi- 
dent use  of  materials  such  as  Luke  mentions  (Luke 
I  :i-4).  It  is  not  my  purpose  here  to  enter  into  a  dis- 
cussion of  the  Synoptic  Problem,  the  broad  outlines  of 
which  are  now  pretty  generally  accepted.  My  own 
views  are  fully  stated  in  my  books  ("Commentary  on 
Matthew  in  the  Bible  for  Home  and  School,"  "Studies 
in  Mark's  Gospel,"  "Luke  the  Historian  in  the  Light 
of  Research").  Both  Matthew  and  Luke  make  use  of 
Mark's  Gospel  and  a  non-Markan  source  commonly 
called  Logia  or  Q  (German  Quelle,  Source).  This 
non-Markan  source  may  very  well  have  been  the 
Logia  of  Matthew  mentioned  by  Papias.  Since  Mat- 
thew was  bilingual  as  a  publican  at  his  post  near  Caper- 
naum on  the  great  West  Road,  it  is  quite  possible  that 
he  may  have  written  the  Logia  in  Aramaic  and  the 
Gospel  in  Greek.  But,  leaving  that  point  to  one  side, 
there  is  every  reason  to  think  of  him  as  one  of  the 
very  earliest  narrators  of  the  things  of  Jesus  Christ. 
Some  scholars  even  hold  that  Matthew  began  to  take 
notes  of  the  sayings  of  Jesus  Christ  during  the  Mas- 
ter's ministry.  If  so,  the  Logia  of  Jesus  by  Matthew 
took  shape  some  twenty  years  before  the  Gospel  of 
Mark  which  reflects  so  faithfully  the  vivid  pictures 
seen  by  Peter.  The  point  is  made  that  Matthew's 
habits  as  a  customs  officer  led  him  to  jot  down,  per- 
haps at  first  in  shorthand,  notes  of  the  wonderful 
words  that  fell  from  the  lips  of  the  great  Teacher.  If 
there  is  anything  at  all  in  this  hypothesis,  we  find  in 
Matthew  an  illustration  of  one's  business  habits  bear- 
ing fruit  in  the  ministry.  The  Gospel  according  to 


204  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

Matthew  has  been  termed  the  most  useful  book  in 
the  world,  for  it  is  the  book  about  Jesus  that  has  been 
most  read.  It  has  given  most  people  their  conception 
of  Christ.  Even  if  Matthew  did  not  write  the  Greek 
Gospel  bearing  his  name,  his  Aramaic  Logia  made  a 
great  contribution  to  the  picture  of  Jesus.  It  is  likely 
that  the  Logia  was  much  larger  in  content  than  the 
non-Markan  element  in  both  Matthew  and  Luke  as 
we  can  judge  by  the  use  made  of  Mark's  Gospel. 
And  in  the  absence  of  definite  proof  against  the  Mat- 
thsean  authorship  of  the  First  Gospel,  his  connection 
with  it  must  be  considered  possible,  some  would  say 
probable,  and  that  is  my  opinion. 

There  are  many  legends  concerning  the  preaching 
of  Matthew,  some  of  them  certainly  confused  with 
Matthias.  These  may  all  be  passed  by  in  our  estimate 
of  the  work  of  Matthew  for  Christ.  If  he  had  done 
nothing  else  but  write  the  Logia  of  which  Papias 
spoke  and  which  modern  criticism  finds  in  large  meas- 
ure preserved  in  our  canonical  Matthew  and  Luke,  he 
would  be  entitled  to  the  rank  of  one  of  the  benefactors 
of  humanity.  The  group  of  twelve  men  whom  Jesus 
gathered  round  him  challenge  our  interest  from  every 
standpoint.  Each  had  his  own  gifts.  The  veil  of  si- 
lence rests  upon  the  work  of  most  of  them.  We  are 
able  to  form  a  fairly  clear  picture  of  Peter,  John, 
Judas,  and  Matthew,  with  a  fainter  outline  of  Philip, 
Andrew,  and  James.  Perhaps  few  in  the  circle  would 
have  thought  of  the  solid  and  more  or  less  stolid  Mat- 
thew as  one  who  would  win  immortal  fame.  But  work 
counts  in  the  end  of  the  day  fully  as  much  as  genius. 
The  greatest  men  have  both  genius  and  the  capacity 


205 

for  work.  In  fact,  genius  is  largely  a  capacity  for 
work.  But  the  less  brilliant  minister  can  do  an  hon- 
est day's  work  with  the  gifts  that  he  has  in  the  place 
where  God  has  placed  him.  These  are  the  men  who 
must  meet  the  demands  of  the  new  world.  Every  man 
must  plough  his  own  furrow  to  the  end  and  must  make 
it  as  straight  as  he  can  and  make  it  fit  in  with  the  work 
of  others.  Christ  calls  upon  business  men  to-day  either 
to  enter  the  ministry  or  to  back  up  the  ministry  with 
personal  service  and  with  money  to  make  Christianity 
effective  in  the  life  of  the  world. 


CHAPTER  XIV 
JUDAS  THE  TRAITOR  TO  HIS  LORD 

The  case  of  Judas  is  the  saddest  of  all  those  who 
came  in  contact  with  Jesus  during  his  earthly  minis- 
try. Others  sinned  grievously,  but  Judas  sinned 
against  more  light  than  they  all.  Simon  Peter  denied 
his  Lord  under  sudden  impulse  when  caught  in  the 
toils  of  circumstance,  but  Judas  sinned  with  delibera- 
tion and  calculated  treachery.  Pilate  sinned  against 
Roman  law  according  to  his  own  confession,  but  he 
palliated  his  conscience  like  some  other  politicians  by 
laying  the  blame  upon  the  Sanhedrin.  The  sin  of 
Caiaphas  was  greater  than  that  of  Pilate  as  Jesus  said 
(John  18  :n).  The  Sanhedrin  gleefully  accepted  their 
share  of  the  guilt  for  the  death  of  Jesus  (John  19:7) 
while  the  populace  enthusiastically  exclaimed:  "His 
blood  be  on  us  and  on  our  children"  (Matt.  27:25). 
There  was  guilt  enough  for  all.  Sadducees,  Phar- 
isees, and  Herodians  buried  the  hatchet  against  each 
other  for  the  moment  in  order  to  vent  their  spleen 
against  Jesus,  the  common  object  of  their  hatred. 

But  Judas  stands  out  above  all  the  rest  as  the  su- 
preme example  of  treachery  for  all  time.  His  very 
name,  though  one  of  the  commonest  and  most  honour- 
able in  ancient  Jewish  history  (merely  the  Greek  form 
of  Judah)  became  the  synonym  for  all  that  is  base 
and  mean.  Benedict  Arnold  can  only  be  called  a  sec- 

206 


JUDAS  THE  TRAITOR  TO  HIS  LORD    207 

ond  Judas.  "The  enormity  of  the  sin  of  Judas  con- 
sisted in  its  being  against  all  bonds  of  discipleship  and 
friendship;  against  light,  against  mercies,  affection, 
trust,  warning;  against  his  own  promises  and  preach- 
ing" (Plummer  in  Hastings's  "D.  B.").  Keim  argues 
that  it  is  impossible  to  think  that  the  treason  of  Judas 
would  have  been  invented  if  he  had  not  been  guilty. 
With  all  the  minute  research  into  the  details  of  the  life 
of  Jesus  in  the  Gospels  no  serious  effort  has  been  made 
to  show  that  Judas  did  not  betray  his  Lord.  And  Judas 
does  not  stand  alone  in  the  history  of  Christianity 
though  he  does  head  the  list  of  traitors.  A  few  men 
who  once  preached  the  glory  of  Jesus  have  lived  to 
curse  his  name  to  the  end. 

There  have  been  those  who  sought  to  relieve  Judas 
of  real  blame  for  his  conduct  by  various  specious 
arguments.  The  commonest  plea  is  that  he  was  the 
chosen  vessel  to  betray  Jesus  so  that  he  could  die  for 
sinners,  that  it  was  God's  plan  that  Christ  should  die 
on  the  Cross  and  that  this  could  only  happen  by  be- 
trayal to  the  Sanhedrin  because  of  Christ's  power  with 
the  people.  But  this  explanation  handles  in  too  light 
and  easy  a  manner  the  whole  problem  of  the  origin 
of  evil  and  of  human  responsibility.  There  is  no  real 
ground  for  saying  that  Judas  was  put  among  the 
Twelve  Apostles  in  order  that  he  might  betray  Jesus. 
Certainly  Jesus  did  not  say  that  he  selected  Judas  be- 
cause he  knew  that  he  would  betray  him.  It  is  not 
clear  from  John  6 164  that  Jesus  meant  to  say  that 
he  knew  who  would  betray  him  from  the  beginning  of 
his  own  ministry.  He  may  mean  only  that  in  the 
early  stages  of  the  work  of  Judas  he  saw  signs  that 


208  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

Judas  was  given  over  to  the  work  of  the  devil  and 
would  betray  him.  That  is  clear  to  Jesus  one  year 
before  the  end  (John  6:70),  though  the  exposure 
seems  not  to  have  shocked  the  Twelve  at  that  time. 
Already  the  heart  of  Judas  was  with  those  who  walked 
no  more  with  Jesus  (John  6:66). 

Some  would  even  make  Judas  a  sort  of  hero  in 
that  he  tried  out  of  excess  of  patriotism  and  loyalty 
to  force  the  hand  of  Jesus  and  compel  him  to  be  king 
in  open  rebellion  to  Caesar.  The  idea  is  that  Judas 
disliked  the  refusal  of  Jesus  to  respond  to  the  pupular 
clamour  in  Galilee  a  year  before  his  death  (John  6:15). 
The  triumphant  entry  gave  Jesus  a  great  following, 
but  even  so  he  showed  no  purpose  to  follow  it  up  in  a 
political  way.  If  Jesus  were  in  the  hands  of  the 
Sanhedrin,  the  people  would  rally  to  his  standard  and 
throw  off  the  Roman  yoke.  So  the  argument  runs, 
but  it  is  very  feeble  and  inconclusive  and  overlooks 
too  many  items  that  demand  explanation,  especially 
the  fact  that  Jesus  calls  him  a  devil  (John  6:70). 

Others  argue  that  Judas  was  wholly  evil  without 
any  element  of  good,  that  he  even  sought  out  a  place 
among  the  Twelve  in  order  that  he  might  have  an 
opportunity  to  betray  Jesus.  Beyond  doubt  Judas 
early  fell  into  the  power  of  the  devil.  Both  Luke 
(22:3)  and  John  (13:27)  say  that  Satan  entered  into 
Judas  just  before  the  betrayal  and,  as  we  have  seen, 
Jesus  called  Judas  a  devil  a  year  before  that.  Evi- 
dently, therefore,  the  connection  of  Judas  with  the 
devil  was  no  new  and  sudden  thing.  In  fact  John 
(13:2)  observes  that  Satan  had  "already"  put  the 
notion  of  betrayal  into  his  heart.  It  is  clear,  therefore,. 


JUDAS  THE  TRAITOR  TO  HIS  LORD    209 

that  Judas  had  for  some  time  brooded  over  his  dark 
project  in  secret  communing  with  the  devil.  Prob- 
ably at  first  the  suggestion  was  more  or  less  uncon- 
scious, but  finally  he  was  fully  aware  of  his  own  pur- 
pose and  welcomed  the  periodic  visits  and  impulses  of 
Satan  in  his  heart.  Undoubtedly  Judas  played  with 
temptation  until  finally  he  became  the  tool  of  the  devil 
who  wrought  his  own  will  through  him.  But  in  the 
last  analysis  that  is  the  story  of  many  a  sordid  life. 
The  worst  dope  fiend  became  a  degenerate  by  degrees. 
There  was  a  time  when  resistance  was  possible. 

Judas  had  elements  of  good  in  him  that  appealed 
to  Jesus.  "Ye  did  not  choose  me,  but  I  chose  you  and 
appointed  you  that  ye  should  go  and  bear  fruit,  and 
that  your  fruit  should  abide"  (John  15:16).  And 
Jesus  thanked  the  Father  for  giving  him  these  twelve 
men  (John  17:6)  :  "And  I  guarded  them  and  not  one 
of  them  perished,  but  the  son  of  perdition"  (John 
17:12).  But  "the  son  of  perdition"  brought  that  fate 
upon  himself,  Jesus  clearly  means.  The  Master  early 
perceived  the  elements  of  peril  in  Judas  and  began  to 
warn  him  in  subtle  ways  and  then  more  openly.  But 
these  warnings  against  hypocrisy  probably  at  first 
passed  by  undiscerned.  When  they  became  more 
personal,  they  were  probably  bitterly  resented  as 
"flings"  and  proof  of  Christ's  dislike  for  Judas.  It 
is  hardly  likely  that  Judas  would  take  to  himself 
the  general  denunciation  of  covetousness  and  hypoc- 
risy or  even  the  implication  that  the  light  in  any  of 
them  might  be  darkness  (Luke  11:35).  When  Jesus 
spoke  of  one  of  them  being  a  devil  (John  7:70), 
Judas  may  have  passed  the  epithet  on  to  others,  as 


210  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

people  will  a  hit  in  sermons.  And  when  at  the  end 
the  language  of  Jesus  was  unmistakable,  Judas  was 
simply  confirmed  in  his  purpose  to  go  on  with  his 
hellish  bargain.  "Ye  are  clean,  but  not  all"  (John 
12:10).  "He  that  eateth  my  bread  lifted  up  his  heel 
against  me"  (John  13:18).  When  Jesus  pointedly 
said  at  the  last  supper:  "One  of  you  shall  betray  me, 
even  he  that  eateth  with  me"  (Mark  14:18),  the  other 
disciples  were  sorrowful  and  amazed  and  looked  on 
one  another  to  see  if  they  could  see  signs  of  such 
treachery  in  each  other  (John  13:22).  When  each 
asked  "Is  it  I,"  Judas  did  the  same  thing  brazenly 
(Matt.  26:25).  He  would  bluff  it  out  as  long  as  he 
could,  though  he  now  knew  that  Jesus  understood  him 
thoroughly.  The  disciples  actually  questioned  each 
other  on  the  subject  (Luke  22  123),  but  failed  to  grasp 
the  significance  of  the  sign  when  Jesus  gave  the  sop 
to  Judas  as  he  indicated  in  response  to  John's  ques- 
tion to  Jesus  and  the  suggestion  of  Peter  (John  13  :23- 
26).  It  is  even  possible  that  Judas  got  the  post  of 
honour  at  this  last  feast,  a  circumstance  that  would 
blacken  his  character  still  more.  But  Judas  under- 
stood perfectly  the  language  of  Jesus:  "What  thou 
doest,  do  quickly."  He  was  now  wholly  in  the  grasp 
of  the  devil  and  the  warnings  of  Jesus  apparently  only 
exasperated  him  to  go  on  to  the  end. 

It  is  not  possible  to  explain  the  career  of  Judas  by 
one  motive.  It  is  not  possible  to  explain  the  conduct 
of  any  ordinary  man  in  that  way.  Jesus  was  in  complete 
fellowship  with  the  Father.  He  was  both  God  and 
man,  but  the  Father's  will  ruled  his  life.  Of  no  one 
else  can  that  be  said  in  that  sense.  Mixed  motives 


JUDAS  THE  TRAITOR  TO  HIS  LORD  211 

control  most  men  and  women  in  what  they  do.  That 
was  certainly  true  of  Judas.  We  may  put  it  down  as 
certain  that  he  did  not  consciously  set  out  to  be  a 
traitor.  He  was  undoubtedly  drawn  to  Jesus  at  first 
by  the  charm  of  his  words  and  by  the  nobility  of  his 
character.  Like  the  other  apostles  he  brought  the 
Pharisaic  conception  of  a  political  Messiah  with  him 
and  he  held  on  to  that  in  spite  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus 
to  the  contrary.  It  was  not  till  the  great  Pentecost 
that  the  rest  saw  the  truth  about  that  fundamental 
point.  Judas  was  dead  by  that  time.  It  is  possible  to 
trace  some  of  the  motives  that  led  Judas  astray. 

Ambition  was  undoubtedly  one  of  them.  It  is  quite 
likely  that  he  thought  of  himself  as  the  leader  of  the 
twelve.  In  Mark  14:10  the  best  manuscripts  call 
Judas  "the  one  of  the  twelve."  We  know  that  they 
had  several  disputes  on  that  very  point  as  to  which  was 
first.  Simon  Peter  felt  himself  the  natural  leader  of 
the  group  because  of  his  ready  speech  and  impulsive 
character.  At  Pentecost  after  the  Ascension  of  Jesus 
he  did  take  the  lead.  Jesus  was  the  real  leader  while 
on  earth.  James  and  John  openly  demanded  the  two 
best  places  for  themselves,  a  selfish  request  that  stirred 
the  indignation  of  the  rest.  During  the  last  year  of 
his  ministry  Jesus  took  pains  to  explain  to  the  disciples 
the  spiritual  nature  of  his  kingdom  and  by  degrees 
the  fact  of  his  death  in  Jerusalem.  Peter  openly  re- 
buked Jesus  for  speaking  in  such  a  despondent  way  of 
his  death  and  brought  upon  himself  the  epithet 
"Satan."  All  this  slowly  sank  into  the  heart  of  Judas 
and  disappointed  ambition  rankled  in  his  breast.  He 
grasped  firmly  the  conviction  that  he  cared  far  more 


212  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

for  a  certain  place  in  a  new  political  revolution  than 
for  shadowy  hopes  about  a  spiritual  and  heavenly 
kingdom.  After  the  glory  of  the  triumphal  entry  on 
Sunday  morning  it  must  not  be  overlooked  that  on 
Tuesday  morning  in  the  temple  Jesus  made  open  breach 
with  the  Sanhedrin  and  made  it  impossible  for  the  re- 
ligious leaders  to  accept  him  as  Messiah.  On  the 
Mount  of  Olives  Jesus  had  delivered  an  extended  dis- 
course full  of  woe  and  disaster  for  the  city  and  the 
world.  Pessimism  evidently  gripped  Judas  power- 
fully at  the  turn  of  events.  He  may  have  desired  to 
save  what  he  could  out  of  the  wreck. 

Jealousy  also  played  its  part  beyond  a  doubt. 
Judas  was  the  only  apostle  from  Judaea.  The  rest  were 
from  Galilee.  This  fact  would  tend  to  make  him  sus- 
picious about  little  things.  At  the  last  supper  there 
was  an  unseemly  scramble  for  the  place  of  honour  next 
to  Jesus.  It  is  not  certain  who  got  it,  whether  Judas, 
Peter,  or  John.  But  we  do  know  that  the  wrangling 
continued  during  the  feast,  after  all  had  reclined,  to 
such  an  extent  that  Jesus  arose  and  took  a  basin  of 
water  and  a  towel  and  began  to  wash  the  disciples' 
feet  to  give  them  an  object  lesson  in  humility. 
Wounded  pride  heals  slowly.  Judas  may  have  felt  that 
Jesus  suspected  him  and  would  honour  the  others,  men 
of  inferior  powers,  in  preference  to  himself.  So  he 
would  come  to  justify  himself  in  his  own  feelings 
toward  Jesus. 

Undoubtedly  Judas  felt  resentment  at  the  public 
rebuke  given  him  by  Jesus  at  the  feast  at  the  house  of 
Simon  the  leper.  Judas  made  the  protest  against  the 
apparent  waste  of  money  by  Mary  for  the  ointment' 


JUDAS  THE  TRAITOR  TO  HIS  LORD   213 

(John  12:5).  To  be  sure,  his  mention  of  the  poor 
was  a  flimsy  protest,  but  all  the  other  disciples  instantly 
joined  in  and  supported  Judas  in  his  criticism  of 
Mary  (Mark  14:4;  Matt.  26:8).  The  rebuke  of  Jesus 
was  direct  and  manifestly  cut  Judas  to  the  quick.  The 
breach  between  Judas  and  Jesus  was  now  wide  open. 
Jesus  appreciated  sentiment  and  love  and  even  spoke 
of  his  death  in  this  connection  (John  12:7).  Judas 
was  practical  and  selfish  and  thought  chiefly  of  what 
he  could  get  out  of  his  allegiance  to  Christ.  He  had 
followed  Christ  in  the  ups  and  downs  of  his  ministry. 
He  had  seen  him  the  hero  of  all  Galilee  and  had  done 
his  share  to  arouse  Galilee  when  the  twelve  toured  the 
land  by  twos.  He  had  preached  Christ's  gospel  of 
the  kingdom  and  had  cast  out  demons.  He  had  gone 
with  Jesus  when  a  practical  refugee  from  Galilee  and 
had  seen  the  gathering  storm  in  Jerusalem.  He  had 
done  his  part  to  turn  Jesus  away  from  the  folly  of  a 
complete  breach  with  the  Jewish  leaders  in  Jerusa- 
lem. This  public  rebuke  before  all  the  twelve  and  the 
other  guests  he  considered  an  unforgivable  insult.  It 
was  the  last  straw  on  the  camel's  back.  He  left  the 
feast  at  Bethany  in  disgust  and  went  straight  to  the 
Sanhedrin  and  offered  to  betray  Jesus  to  them  (Mark 
14:10).  He  acted  as  if  in  hot  resentment,  but  it  was 
not  a  new  thought.  Satan  entered  into  him  afresh  at 
this  juncture  (Luke  22:3),  but  he  was  now  merely 
ripe  fruit  for  the  devil's  hand. 

Covetousness  played  its  part  also  in  the  ruin  of  the 
soul  of  Judas.  John  notes  that  Judas  was  a  thief 
and  had  been  in  the  habit  of  pilfering  from  the  company 
bag  that  he  carried  for  all  (John  12:6).  But  John's 


TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

comment  is  made  in  the  light  of  the  after  development. 
At  this  stage  no  one  of  them  suspected  him  of  finan- 
cial crookedness.  He  was  the  treasurer  of  the  com- 
pany and  had  won  this  place  of  responsible  leadership 
because  of  business  ability  and  a  practical  turn  for 
affairs.  He  no  doubt  felt  that,  as  treasurer  of  the 
group,  he  had  a  right  to  file  a  protest  against  the 
reckless  and  foolish  extravagance  of  Mary  in  the  waste 
of  so  much  money  on  mere  sentiment.  They  had  not 
had  too  much  money  and  often  were  in  want  with 
nowhere  to  lay  their  heads.  But  for  the  handful  of 
women  who  ministered  to  them  of  their  substance 
(Luke  8:1-3)  their  condition  would  have  been  much 
worse.  The  covetousness  of  Judas  appeared  to  him 
as  economy  and  good  business  sense.  Many  another 
has  excused  his  own  stinginess  by  polite  terms  of  like 
nature.  The  love  of  money  cheapens  a  man's  whole 
nature  and  does  much  to  destroy  the  finer  qualities. 
At  any  rate  Judas  seems  blunt  and  brutal  as  a  spy 
before  the  Sanhedrin :  "What  are  ye  willing  to  give 
me,  and  I  will  deliver  him  unto  you?"  (Matt.  26:15). 
It  is  hard  to  believe  that  even  a  miser  would  have  come 
over  to  the  enemy  for  so  small  a  price  as  thirty  pieces 
of  silver  which  the  chief  priests  weighed  out  unto  him 
in  advance  (Matt.  26:15).  It  was  the  price  of  a 
slave  (Exodus  21 :32)  and  that  fact  would  give  added 
pleasure  to  Judas  in  his  mood  of  angry  resentment  and 
disappointed  ambition.  He  acted  probably  on  impulse 
in  going  all  of  a  sudden  to  the  Sanhedrin  to  make  the 
proposal  to  show  them  how  to  seize  Jesus  during  the 
feast  in  spite  of  the  multitude  of  adherents  that  he 
had  (Luke  22  :6).  But  he  stuck  to  his  nefarious  bar- 


JUDAS  THE  TRAITOR  TO  HIS  LORD 

gain  with  deliberation  and  pertinacity.  He  had  plenty 
of  opportunity  to  change  his  mind  and  to  return  the 
money.  On  the  other  hand  "he  sought  opportunity" 
to  deliver  Jesus  to  the  Sanhedrin. 

So  the  shameful  compact  was  carried  through  to  the 
letter.  Judas  came  back  and  took  his  accustomed 
place  with  the  eleven  who  suspected  nothing  to  the  end. 
They  even  misunderstood  Christ's  last  word  to  Judas 
before  he  left  on  his  hellish  mission  as  a  message 
about  his  duties  as  treasurer  (John  13  129)  even  after 
Jesus  had  exposed  the  betrayer  to  them  all.  They  did 
not  have  eyes  to  see  such  treachery.  Judas  was  a 
coward  like  most  criminals.  He  knew  the  real  power 
of  Jesus  and  came  to  the  Garden  of  Gethsemane, 
Christ's  favourite  place  of  prayer,  and  took  advantage 
of  his  knowledge  of  Christ's  habits  of  piety  (John 
18:2).  But  even  so  he  came  with  a  band  of  soldiers 
and  with  lanterns  and  torches  and  weapons  (John 
18  13).  Judas  felt  the  power  of  Jesus  in  the  bold  chal- 
lenge and  the  manifestation  of  the  supernatural  power 
(John  18:4-9).  But  there  was  no  turning  back  now. 
Judas  had  crossed  the  Rubicon.  There  was  no  need 
for  him  to  go  on  with  his  sign  to  the  soldiers  to  iden- 
tify Jesus.  He  was  already  marked  out  by  his  own 
conduct.  But  Judas  kissed  Jesus  excessively  (Mark 
14:45),  adding  insult  to  injury.  The  last  word  of 
Jesus  to  Judas  made  it  plain  that  he  was  understood 
^(Matt.  26:50). 

The  remorse  of  Judas  was  in  keeping  with  all  the 
rest.  It  was  not  real  repentance,  but  only  sorrow  at 
the  outcome.  After  the  actual  condemnation  of  Jesus 
Judas  began  to  see  himself  in  his  true  light.  The  blur 


216  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

of  anger  and  resentment  subsided  enough  for  him  to 
see  his  own  portrait.  That  has  often  happened  with  a 
murderer  or  a  rapist  after  the  deed  is  done.  Gloating 
satisfaction  gives  place  to  a  reviving  conscience  that 
whips  like  a  scorpion  sting.  So  in  a  rage  he  rushed 
to  the  chief  priests  and  confessed  his  crime:  "I  have 
sinned  in  that  I  have  betrayed  innocent  blood"  (Matt. 
27:4).  But  they  were  not  interested  in  that  phase  of 
the  subject:  "What  is  that  to  us?  See  thou  to  it" 
(Matt.  27:5).  He  flung  the  pieces  of  money  into  the 
sanctuary,  where  he  was  not  himself  allowed  to  go  and 
departed. 

There  are  two  accounts  of  the  death  of  Judas,  that 
in  Matthew  27:4-10  and  that  in  Acts  i  :i8-i9.  They 
differ  in  several  details  and  are  probably  independent 
traditions.  It  is  possible  to  harmonise  them  if  one 
wishes  to  do  so.  He  may  have  hanged  himself  and 
have  fallen  down,  the  rope  breaking,  and  burst  asunder. 
The  field  could  have  been  called  the  field  of  blood  be- 
cause his  own  blood  was  shed  on  it  and  also  because 
the  Sanhedrin  bought  it  with  blood  money,  the  price 
of  the  death  of  Jesus,  and  so  have  used  it  as  a  pot- 
ter's field  for  burying  strangers.  At  any  rate  the  chief 
priests  apparently  took  the  money  that  they  had 
spurned  but  used  it  for  this  special  purpose.  There 
are  legends  about  his  death  that  may  be  passed  by. 

The  greatest  Tragedy  of  the  ages  carried  with  it 
the  treachery  of  Judas  and  the  faltering  of  Simon 
Peter,  two  of  the  leading  apostles.  In  fact,  they  all 
deserted  for  a  time  and  fled  like  sheep  without  a  shep- 
herd as  Jesus  had  said  they  would.  But  Peter  sin- 
cerely repented  and  came  back  and  made  good.  But 


JUDAS  THE  TRAITOR  TO  HIS  LORD 

Judas  went  over  the  cliff.  He  went  down  with  the 
Niagara  flood.  Peter  says  that  "he  went  to  his  own 
place"  (Acts  I  125).  He  went  to  his  doom  that  he 
had  earned  for  himself.  We  are  all  caught  in  the 
womb  of  circumstance  and  at  times  we  seem  the  vic- 
tims of  destiny  that  we  cannot  control.  But  our 
spiritual  destiny  we  make  for  ourselves.  Terrible  as 
was  the  fate  of  Judas,  one  must  conclude  that  he  had 
in  him  the  making  of  a  great  preacher  of  Christ's  gos- 
pel. Jesus  saw  the  good  that  was  possible  in  Judas 
as  he  did  in  Simon.  But  Simon,  in  spite  of  his  ups 
and  downs,  became  at  last  a  rock,  while  Judas  became 
a  devil.  Both  were  under  the  tutelage  of  Jesus.  Both 
had  the  same  privileges.  Both  were  men  of  weakness 
and  frailty.  One  fought  the  devil  after  momentary 
defeat.  The  other  courted  the  devil  and  listened  to 
his  blandishments. 

Judas  carries  a  perpetual  warning  to  every  preacher 
of  Christ.  Paul  saw  the  peril  clearly:  "I  therefore  so 
run  as  not  uncertainly,  I  so  fight  as  not  beating  the 
air,  but  I  beat  my  body  and  keep  it  in  subjection,  lest, 
after  having  preached  to  others,  I  myself  should  be- 
come rejected"  (i  Cor.  9:26-7).  Paul  warned  us  not 
to  give  place  to  the  devil  (Eph.  4:27).  Others  can 
tread  under  foot  the  Son  of  God  (Heb.  10:29)  and 
crucify  him  afresh  and  put  him  to  an  open  shame 
(Heb.  6:6).  It  is  a  high  and  holy  privilege  to  be 
allowed  to  come  into  the  inner  circle  of  Christ's  fol- 
lowers. It  is  a  dread  catastrophe  to  see  such  a  one 
sink  back  into  the  pit  from  which  he  was  digged.  It 
were  indeed  good  for  that  man  if  he  had  not  been 
born  (Matt.  26:24). 


CHAPTER  XV 
DIOTREPHES  THE  CHURCH  REGULATOR 

The  Elder  who  writes  the  Third  Epistle  of  John 
was  probably  the  Apostle  John,  the  Beloved  Disciple 
of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  and  the  author  of  First  and 
Second  John.  He  does  not  call  himself  John  or  an 
apostle,  but  that  proves  nothing.  Peter  terms  himself 
"a  fellow-elder"  in  writing  to  "the  elders"  (i  Peter 
5:1).  The  style  of  the  three  Johannine  Epistles  is 
the  same  as  that  of  the  Fourth  Gospel.  Not  all 
scholars  agree,  to  be  sure,  but  we  may  think  of  the 
aged  Apostle  John  writing  these  letters  in  his  zeal  to 
help  on  the  mission  work  in  Asia  Minor.  In  the  later 
years  of  the  first  century  the  story  is  that  John  lived 
at  Ephesus  where  Paul  had  laboured  for  three  years 
and  where  later  Timothy  was  Paul's  loyal  disciple  in 
charge  of  the  evangelistic  work.  Already  Gnosticism 
had  come  mto  this  region  to  play  havoc  with  the 
churches  as  we  see  in  Colossians  and  in  the  Pastoral 
Epistles.  This  subtle  heresy  concerned  itself  pri- 
marily with  a  philosophical  theory  that  all  matter  is 
essentially  evil.  This  theory,  like  that  of  Mrs.  Eddy 
that  matter  is  non-existent,  involves  serious  conse- 
quences in  morale  and  in  doctrines.  In  particular,  it 
involved  a  degrading  view  of  the  person  of  Christ,  like 
"Christian  Science"  again.  Two  forms  of  Gnosticism 

appeared.     One,  the  Docetic,  denied  that  Jesus  had  a 

218 


DIOTREPHES  THE  CHURCH  REGULATOR   219 

real  human  body  at  all.  "For  many  deceivers  are  come 
forth  into  the  world,  they  that  confess  not  that  Jesus 
Christ  cometh  in  the  flesh"  (2  John  7).  These  here- 
tics held  that  Jesus  was  an  cson  or  intermediate  being 
between  God  and  man  and  only  seemed  to  have  a  human 
body.  The  other  view,  that  of  Cerinthus,  was  that 
Jesus  the  man  and  Christ  the  (son  that  came  on  Jesus 
at  his  baptism  were  different,  curiously  like  the  "Jesus 
or  Christ"  controversy  in  the  Hibbert  Journal  Sup- 
plement (1909).  "Who  is  the  liar  but  he  that  denieth 
that  Jesus  is  the  Christ?"  (i  John  2:22).  The  churches 
were  rent  by  this  heresy.  Some  went  out  (i  John 
2:19),  while  others  remained  in  the  membership. 

There  were  loyal  missionaries  going  among  the 
churches.  These  had  to  be  entertained  and  supported. 
John  urges  Gaius  to  "set  forward  on  this  journey 
worthily  of  God"  (3  John  6)  these  brethren  and 
strangers  withal,  "because  for  that  for  the  sake  of  the 
Name  they  went  forth,  taking  nothing  of  the  Gen- 
tiles" (verse  7).  One  is  reminded  of  the  directions 
of  Jesus  to  the  Twelve  Apostles  when  they  were  sent 
over  Galilee  by  twos.  So  Paul  and  his  co-labourers 
journeyed  over  much  of  the  Roman  Empire.  So  mis- 
sionaries to-day  go  through  Central  China.  The  treat- 
ment of  these  heralds  of  the  Cross  became  a  test  of 
one's  loyalty  to  Jesus  as  missions  is  to-day  a  touch- 
stone of  vital  Christianity.  "We  therefore  ought  to 
welcome  such,  that  we  may  be  fellow- workers  for  the 
truth"  (verse  8).  The  least  that  a  true  Christian  could 
do  was  to  give  hospitality  for  these  pioneer  preachers 
who  pushed  on  to  the  harder  fields.  There  were  few 
hotels  in  our  modern  sense  of  comfort  and  the  public 


220  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

inns  were  usually  impossible  places  because  of  vermin 
(human  and  non-human).  So  hospitality  was  a  Chris- 
tian virtue  of  the  first  quality  as  it  still  adorns  many 
a  home  to-day. 

It  is  not  certain  whether  Diotrephes  was  a  Gnostic  or 
not.  It  seems  pretty  clear  that  he  sympathised  with 
that  doctrine.  Some  of  the  Gnostic  propagandists 
were  fierce  in  their  denunciations  of  Christ  and  of 
Christianity.  Cerinthus  and  John  were  held  to  be 
strongly  antagonistic.  It  would  come  to  pass  that 
one  could  not  show  hospitality  to  a  Gnostic  without 
being  suspected  of  sympathy  with  that  heresy.  "If 
any  one  cometh  unto  you,  and  bringeth  not  this  teach- 
ing (the  teaching  of  Christ),  receive  him  not  into  your 
house  and  give  him  no  greeting"  (2  John  10).  Such 
an  extreme  course  could  only  be  justified  where  the 
heresy  was  very  radical.  To-day  one  might  hesitate 
to  give  hospitality  to  a  Mormon  missionary  or  to  a  pro- 
fessional or  blatant  infidel. 

John  says:  "I  wrote  somewhat  unto  the  church"  (3 
John  9).  Both  Gaius  and  Diotrephes  were  apparently 
members  of  the  same  church,  though  what  church  we 
do  not  know.  That  letter  to  the  church  is  apparently 
lost,  though  some  scholars  see  it  in  2  John  (the  elect 
lady),  an  unlikely  supposition.  This  lost  letter  dealt 
with  the  proper  reception  of  the  missionaries  as  they 
went  from  church  to  church.  This  letter  probably 
covered  much  of  the  same  ground  as  the  Third  Epis- 
tle to  Gaius,  urging  the  right  reception  of  Demetrius 
and  of  the  other  brethren  who  were  doing  good  for 
God.  It  may  be  questioned  whether  this  letter  to  the 
church  contained  formal  denunciation  of  Diotrephes, 


DIOTREPHES  THE  CHURCH  REGULATOR 

though  that  is  possible.  Certainly  John  was  not  afraid 
of  Diotrephes,  for  he  was  not  afraid  of  Cerinthus. 

But  our  Third  John  is  a  private  letter  to  Gaius  sent 
at  the  same  time  as  the  public  epistle  to  the  church. 
Probably  the  main  point  in  this  letter  is  to  warn 
Gaius  about  Diotrephes.  In  this  private  letter  prob- 
ably John  employs  language  a  bit  sharper  than  in  the 
other.  John  is  evidently  anxious  that  Diotrephes  shall 
not  be  allowed  to  prejudice  the  church  further  against 
him  and  the  missionary  brethren.  He  wishes  Gaius 
to  forestall  such  action  on  the  part  of  Diotrephes.  But 
the  letter  is  a  frank  testimonial  to  the  power  of  Dio- 
trephes in  the  church  of  which  Gaius  is  a  member. 
It  is  to  be  a  struggle  between  Gaius  and  Diotrephes 
for  mastery  in  the  church,  between  the  evil  and  the 
good.  "Beloved,  imitate  not  that  which  is  evil,  but 
that  which  is  good.  He  that  doeth  good  is  of  God :  he 
that  doeth  evil  hath  not  seen  God"  (3  John  n).  We 
need  not  draw  the  conclusion  that  Diotrephes  is 
wholly  evil,  but  certainly  his  influence  is  dangerous 
for  the  cause  of  Christianity.  He  is  still  a  member 
of  the  church  and  exerts  great  power  over  the  church 
as  will  be  seen. 

The  precise  ecclesiastical  position  of  Diotrephes  is 
not  clear.  Some  have  seen  in  his  exercise  of  power 
the  monarchical  bishop  of  later  times.  That  is  an 
unnecessary  hypothesis  in  the  absence  of  any  evidence 
of  bishop  as  distinct  from  elder  (presbyter)  in  the 
New  Testament  as  Lightfoot  has  shown.  It  is  not 
absolutely  certain  that  Diotrephes  was  an  elder  or 
bishop  at  all,  though  that  is  likely.  Probably  both 
Gaius  and  Diotrephes  were  elders  in  the  same  church 


222  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

as  we  see  several  elders  at  Ephesus  and  Philippi.  It 
is  possible  that  Diotrephes  was  a  deacon.  Many  years 
ago  I  wrote  an  article  for  a  denominational  paper  con- 
cerning Diotrephes.  The  editor  told  me  afterwards 
that  twenty-five  deacons  had  ordered  the  paper  stopped 
as  a  protest  against  the  personal  attack  in  the  paper. 
What  I  did  in  the  article  was  to  show  that  Diotrephes 
was  a  typical  church  "boss"  who  ruled  the  church  to 
suit  his  own  whims.  In  Kentucky  we  have  a  phrase 
termed  "the  short-horn  deacon"  for  this  type  of  church 
regulator.  I  once  heard  of  such  a  deacon  who  boasted 
that  he  had  made  every  pastor  leave  that  he  had  ever 
had.  To  be  sure,  a  preacher  can  be  a  church  "boss" 
as  well  as  the  deacon.  But  it  is  easier  to  drive  the 
pastor  away  than  the  deacon.  I  know  of  one  case 
where  the  pastor  quietly  informed  such  a  deacon  that 
he  (the  deacon)  would  have  to  go  if  anyone  left.  The 
deacon  left  and  joined  another  church. 

The  sin  that  John  charges  against  Diotrephes  is  that 
he  "loves  to  have  the  pre-eminence."  The  word  here 
employed  by  John  is  a  very  rare  one  and  means  "fond 
of  being  first."  A  late  scholion  explains  it  as  "seizing 
the  first  things  in  an  underhand  way."  The  word 
occurs  among  the  ecclesiastical  writers  to  picture  the 
rivalries  among  the  bishops  of  the  time.  It  is  a  sad 
commentary  on  human  nature  that  even  preachers  of 
humility  often  practise  the  pushing  of  self  to  the  front 
in  an  unbecoming  spirit  and  manner.  One  recalls  that 
once  Jesus  found  the  disciples  disputing  among  them- 
selves who  was  the  greatest  among  them,  a  spirit 
that  Jesus  sternly  rebuked  by  placing  a  little  child, 
possibly  Peter's  own  child,  in  the  midst  of  them,  and 


DIOTREPHES  THE  CHURCH  REGULATOR    223 

by  saying  that  the  greatest  was  the  one  who  served 
the  most.  And  once  James  and  John  with  their  mother 
actually  came  to  Jesus  with  the  formal  request  that 
they  be  given  the  two  chief  places  in  the  kingdom  of 
Christ  (the  political  Messianic  kingdom  of  their  ex- 
pectation). And  at  the  last  passover  meal  Jesus  had 
to  rebuke  the  apostles  for  their  unseemly  conduct  in 
scrambling  for  the  post  of  honour  at  the  meal.  It  was 
with  this  peril  in  mind  that  Jesus  urged  the  apostles  to 
love  one  another  and  prayed  for  unity  among  them  and 
among  all  his  future  followers.  Ambition  is  not  sin- 
ful in  itself  though  our  very  word  (of  Latin  origin) 
had  a  bad  history,  for  it  suggests  politicians  who  would 
take  both  sides  of  an  issue  in  order  to  get  votes.  This 
double-dealing  is  due  to  the  desire  for  place  and  power. 
Jesus  noted  that  the  Pharisees  loved  the  chief  seats  in 
the  synagogue  in  order  to  be  seen  of  men.  Their  piety 
was  particularly  punctilious  if  enough  prominence 
could  be  obtained  to  justify  the  display  and  outlay  of 
energy.  A  certain  amount  of  ambition  to  excel  is 
good  for  one.  Ambition  is  a  good  servant,  but  a  bad 
master.  It  is  dangerous  for  ambition  to  have  the  whip 
handle  in  one's  life.  Diotrephes  loved  the  first  place 
among  the  brethren.  He  was  determined  to  be  first  at 
any  cost.  If  any  honours  were  to  be  bestowed,  he  as- 
sumed that  they  belonged  to  him  as  a  matter  of  course. 
He  must  be  consulted  on  a  matter  of  church  policy 
else  he  was  against  it.  The  least  detail  of  church  life 
must  receive  his  sanction  else  he  would  condemn  it. 
If  he  was  not  chairman  of  all  the  committees,  he  must 
be  regarded  as  an  ex  officio  member.  If  Diotrephes  had 
been  the  sole  pastor  of  the  church,  something  could 


be  said  for  such  pre-eminence.  But  evidently  Gaius  was 
also  one  of  the  elders.  And  Diotrephes  may  have  been 
only  a  deacon.  But  the  spirit  of  a  man  like  Diotre- 
phes does  not  depend  on  office.  Such  a  man  rates  him- 
self as  the  natural  leader  of  the  church  by  reason  of  his 
native  gifts,  family,  money,  reputation.  The  only  way 
for  the  church  to  have  peace  is  for  all  freely  to  acknowl- 
edge this  brother's  primacy.  Plutarch  notes  that 
Alcibiades  wanted  the  first  place.  He  got  it  and  he 
ruined  Athens  by  the  expedition  to  Syracuse.  It  is 
impossible  to  calculate  the  harm  that  has  been  wrought 
in  the  churches  by  church  dictators  like  Diotrephes. 

Diotrephes  drew  the  line  on  John.  He  "receiveth 
me  not."  He  refused  to  recognise  the  standing  and 
authority  of  John  the  Elder  and  Apostle.  The  word 
here  rendered  "receive"  occurs  in  the  papyri  in  the 
sense  of  "accepting"  a  lease  and  in  Maccabees  10:1 
for  "accepting"  a  king.  Evidently  Diotrephes  treated 
John  as  a  heretic  or  as  John  is  said  to  have  treated 
Cerinthus  when  he  rushed  out  of  the  bath  when  Cer- 
inthus  came  in  lest  the  house  fall  in  because  of  God's 
wrath.  One  recalls  the  temperament  of  this  "son  of 
thunder"  who  came  to  be  known  as  "the  apostle  of 
love."  It  was  John  who  in  great  zeal  reported  to 
Jesus  one  day :  "Master,  we  saw  one  casting  out  de- 
mons in  thy  name;  and  we  forbade  him,  because  he 
followed  not  with  us"  (Luke  9:49).  But  Jesus  re- 
buked John's  narrowness  of  spirit  about  method  of 
work.  "Forbid  him  not:  for  he  that  is  not  against 
you  is  for  you"  (Luke  9:50).  John  and  James  were 
those  who  asked  Jesus  to  call  down  fire  from  heaven 
to  consume  the  Samaritans  who  "did  not  receive" 


DIOTREPHES  THE  CHURCH  REGULATOR   225 

Jesus  (Luke  9:52-55).  But  Jesus  "turned  and  re- 
buked them."  John  was  now  the  aged  apostle  who 
went  from  church  to  church  with  the  message :  "Little 
children,  love  one  another."  But  he  still  had  the  old 
fire  and  vigour  with  more  justification  against  Dio- 
trephes  than  against  the  examples  in  the  Gospel  of 
Luke.  Diotrephes  was  turning  the  tables  on  John 
(cf.  3  John  10)  and  was  refusing  to  recognise  or  to 
entertain  John  as  a  genuine  minister  of  Christ.  Be- 
sides, he  said  slighting  things  about  John,  "prating 
against  us  with  wicked  words."  The  word  translated 
"prating"  occurs  as  an  adjective  in  I  Timothy  5:13 
"tattlers"  (verbosa,  Vulgate).  These  idle,  tattling 
busy-bodies  excited  Paul's  disgust  That  is  John's 
word  for  Diotrephes.  He  seemed  to  have  John  on  the 
brain  and  gadded  around  with  idle  tales  and  "wicked 
words"  derogatory  to  John's  character  and  work, 
seeking  to  undermine  his  influence  for  good.  This 
sort  of  propaganda  against  preachers  is  only  too  com- 
mon. It  degenerates  into  idle  gossip.  One  of  the 
saddest  spectacles  in  modern  Christianity  is  to  see 
the  very  forces  that  are  designed  to  co-operate  with  the 
pastor  in  pushing  on  the  work  of  the  kingdom  of  God, 
engaged  in  pulling  down  all  that  the  pastor  and  other 
church  members  try  to  do.  The  result  is  the  paralysis 
of  the  work  and  the  mockery  of  the  outsiders  who  sneer 
at  Christian  love  and  unity.  As  a  rule  the  pastor 
can  only  suffer  in  silence  and  go  on  with  those  who 
have  a  mind  to  work  in  spite  of  the  slackers  and  the 
hinderers.  Silence  is  the  best  answer  to  idle  slander. 
But  sometimes  the  man  of  God  has  to  speak.  And  then 
it  should  be  to  the  point  and  very  brief  and  in  a  way 


226  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

to  help  the  cause  of  Christ,  not  to  do  harm.  As  a 
rule,  well-doing  is  the  best  way  to  put  to  silence  the 
ignorance  of  foolish  men  ( i  Peter  2:15).  John  does 
not  mind  ostracism  by  Diotrephes  save  as  that  leads 
others  astray. 

But  Diotrephes  draws  the  line  on  all  of  John's  fol- 
lowers. Diotrephes  was  "not  content  therewith."  He 
was  not  satisfied  with  his  vindictive  opposition  to 
John  the  Elder.  "Neither  doth  he  himself  receive  the 
brethren."  Probably  these  missionary  brethren  had 
letters  of  commendation  from  John.  That  item  would 
only  anger  Diotrephes  all  the  more.  It  was  now  his 
habit  to  close  his  door  against  anybody  aligned  with 
the  Apostle  John.  He  will  not  recognise  the  Elder. 
He  will  not  recognise  the  followers  or  co-labourers  of 
the  Elder.  Hence  John  pleads  with  Gaius  to  take 
special  interest  in  those  who  "for  the  sake  of  the  Name 
went  forth"  (3  John  7).  One  recalls  the  language 
of  Luke  in  Acts  5 141,  "Rejoicing  that  they  were 
counted  worthy  to  suffer  dishonour  for  the  Name." 
This  way  of  referring  to  Jesus- became  common,  it  is 
clear.  The  problem  of  welcoming  those  who  travelled 
from  place  to  place  and  who  claimed  to  be  at  work  in 
the  name  of  the  Lord  was  a  vital  one  for  a  long  time 
as  is  seen  in  "The  Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apostles," 
XII,  i  :  "And  let  everyone  that  comes  in  the  name  of 
the  Lord  be  received  and  then  after  testing  him  ye 
will  know."  The  brother  who  claimed  to  be  for  the 
Lord  had  the  presumption  in  his  favour,  but  some 
wolves  travelled  in  sheep's  clothing  and  a  certain 
amount  of  discretion  was  called  for  then  and  now. 
Even  to-day,  with  all  our  publicity  and  modern  facili- 


DIOTREPHES  THE  CHURCH  REGULATOR  227 

ties  for  information,  people  are  only  too  often  taken 
in  by  slick-tongued  adventurers  who  make  money  out 
of  gullible  brethren  and  sisters  and  then  move  on  to 
fresh  pastures.  There  is  some  advantage  in  having 
some  sort  of  a  line  drawn.  John  is  not  here  demand- 
ing that  Diotrephes  reform,  but  that  Gaius  see  to  it 
that  John's  missionaries  are  taken  care  of  when  they 
come.  One  of  my  clearest  childhood  memories  is  that 
of  Elias  Dodson,  a  quaint  and  godly  missionary  of 
the  old  Home  Mission  Board  of  Southern  Baptists. 
This  gifted  and  consecrated  man  went  from  house  to 
house  on  his  mule  and  usually  had  only  one  suit  of 
clothes.  He  used  to  ask  for  a  dollar  for  the  Indians 
and  he  generally  got  it.  He  would  write  postcards 
ahead  about  his  entertainment  or  send  little  notes  to 
the  denominational  paper  concerning  his  appointments 
and  entertainment.  He  was  a  modern  example  of 
John's  travelling  missionaries  from  church  to  church. 
Elias  Dodson  did  much  to  create  a  real  missionary 
spirit  in  Virginia  and  North  Carolina.  Even  those  who 
were  opposed  to  missions  found  it  hard  to  put  a  ban 
on  Elias  Dodson  and  his  mule. 

But  Diotrephes  sought  to  dictate  to  the  whole  church 
a  line  of  conduct  toward  John  and  his  missionaries. 
"And  them  that  would  (receive  the  brethren)  he  for- 
biddeth  and  casteth  them  out  of  the  church."  Here  we 
see  the  rule  or  ruin  policy  of  the  church  "boss."  This 
self-willed  leader  is  not  content  that  he  shall  be  al- 
lowed to  treat  John  and  his  missionaries  as  outsiders. 
He  demands  that  everyone  in  the  church  do  the  same 
thing.  He  had  the  whip  handle  in  the  church  and  was 
determined  to  force  his  will  upon  the  entire  member- 


228  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

ship.  It  is  not  clear  whether  he  actually  succeeded  or 
not.  The  tense  in  the  Greek  allows  merely  the  threat 
and  the  attempt  for  "casts  out."  In  John  9:34  the 
Pharisees  actually  "cast  out"  (aorist  tense)  the  blind 
man  who  stood  out  against  them  that  Jesus  was  not  a 
sinner,  but  a  prophet  of  God.  They  turned  him  out 
of  the  synagogue  and  then  Jesus  met  him  and  saved 
him,  a  grotesque  picture  of  a  synagogue  that  fought 
against  God  in  Christ.  If  Diotrephes  actually  com- 
pelled this  church  to  expel  those  who  dared  to  welcome 
the  missionaries  of  John,  it  was  an  honour  to  be  out- 
side of  that  church.  But  the  fact  that  Gaius  was  still 
a  member  of  the  church,  an  elder  apparently,  argues 
for  the  conclusion  that  Diotrephes  was  simply  terroris- 
ing the  brotherhood  by  his  threats.  But  it  was  bad 
enough  for  a  church  to  have  a  "bulldozer"  like  Dio- 
trephes who  blocked  the  path  of  progress  for  the 
church.  He  had  become  the  chief  liability  to  the 
church  instead  of  its  chief  asset. 

So  John  exposes  Diotrephes  plainly  to  Gaius.  John 
is  not  afraid  to  face  Diotrephes.  He  is  anxious  to  do 
so,  but  he  cannot  come  yet.  Meanwhile,  he  puts  Gaius 
on  his  guard  and  urges  him  to  break  the  power  of 
Diotrephes  over  the  church  by  daring  to  show  him  up 
as  he  really  is.  Gaius  owes  this  duty  to  the  church. 
But  John  hopes  to  come  some  day.  "Therefore,  if  I 
come,  I  will  bring  to  remembrance  his  deeds  which  he 
does."  One  needs  only  to  read  I  John  2.  to  see  how 
plainly  John  can  speak  when  the  occasion  calls  for  it. 
It  becomes  a  sad  duty  sometimes  to  expose  the  wicked 
ambition  of  a  man  with  the  rule  or  ruin  policy.  It  is 
better  that  such  a  man  drop  out  of  the  church  than 


229 

that  the  church  wither  and  die.  Our  churches  need 
leadership,  but  not  domination.  The  difference  is 
vital.  Leaders  lead,  bosses  drive  their  slaves  under 
orders. 


CHAPTER  XVI 

EPAPHRODITUS  THE  MINISTER  WHO  RISKED 
ALL  FOR  CHRIST 

All  that  we  really  know  about  Epaphroditus  we 
learn  from  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Philippians,  but  that 
little  is  exceedingly  suggestive  and  helpful.  The  name 
is  the  same  as  the  shortened  form  Epaphras  that  ap- 
pears in  Colossians  1:7;  4:12;  Philemon  23.  But 
there  is  no  likelihood  that  it  is  the  same  person,  for 
Philippi  and  Colossse  are  quite  too  far  apart  for  the 
same  man  to  be  a  messenger  from  both  cities  to  Paul 
in  Rome  at  about  the  same  time.  Besides  the  name 
is  a  not  uncommon  one  on  the  inscriptions.  So  we 
must  rely  on  Philippians  2:25-30  and  4:10-18  for  all 
our  knowledge  of  his  life  and  work.  But  these  pas- 
sages furnish  us  a  reasonably  clear  picture  of  a  bold 
and  courageous  personality  who  hesitated  not  to  do 
his  simple  duty  in  the  face  of  great  difficulty  and  even 
of  peril.  In  this  respect  he  is  a  fine  example  of  thou- 
sands of  loyal  ministers  of  Christ  who  have  done  the 
work  of  the  hero  with  none  of  the  halo  that  comes  to 
many  men  in  other  callings  of  life.  The  call  for  the 
heroic  still  appeals  to  the  best  type  of  young  men  who 
enter  the  ministry  of  Jesus  Christ.  Many  of  these 
suffer  in  silence  and  in  poverty  at  home  and  die  like 
martyrs  on  the  foreign  field.  It  is  all  in  the  day's 
work  with  these  men,  true  soldiers  of  Christ. 

230 


Epaphroditus  was  the  messenger  of  the  church  in 
Philippi  to  bear  the  gifts  of  this  noble  church  to  Paul 
while  in  Rome.  This  church  was  the  very  first  that 
gave  Paul  actual  financial  help  in  his  missionary  propa- 
ganda as  Paul  expressly  states  (Phil.  4:15-16).  At 
first  Philippi  stood  alone  among  the  early  churches  in 
this  "fellowship"  or  "partnership"  (koinonia)  with 
Paul.  Paul  greatly  appreciated  this  active  participa- 
tion with  him  in  his  campaign  to  win  the  Gentiles  to 
Christ  and  he  mentions  it  a  number  of  times  (Phil. 
i  15,  7;  2:30,  4:15).  They  had  come  to  Paul's  help 
several  times  before  while  in  Thessalonica  (Phil.  4:16) 
and  in  Corinth  also  at  a  time  when  Paul  was  in  actual 
want  (2  Cor.  n  :7-io)  because  the  church  at  Corinth 
was  critical  and  suspicious  and  not  generous.  So  once 
again  after  some  years  the  church  at  Philippi  has  blos- 
somed out  ("sprouted  up,"  Phil.  4:10)  again  with  a 
rich  reminder  of  their  love  for  Paul,  a  sweet  aroma 
that  was  pleasing  to  God  as  well  as  to  Paul  (4:18) 
and  that  God  alone  could  reward  with  His  riches  in 
grace.  Paul  terms  Epaphroditus,  the  bearer  of  this 
gracious  bounty,  the  church's  "apostle"  (apostolos), 
or  missionary.  It  is  the  same  word  that  he  applies  to 
the  "apostles  of  the  churches"  (2  Cor.  8:23)  who 
were  associated  with  Paul  in  the  gathering  of  the  great 
collection  for  the  poor  saints  in  Jerusalem.  It  is  the 
original  and  general  meaning  of  the  word  that  appears 
in  a  technical  sense  when  applied  to  Paul  the  Apostle 
and  to  the  Twelve  Apostles.  But  Paul  does  not  hesi- 
tate to  call  Epaphroditus  "your  apostle."  He  is  also 
"your  minister."  Here  the  word  (leitourgos)  is  the 
same  as  our  "liturgy."  It  means  one  who  does  work 


232  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

for  the  people  and  had  more  than  the  modern  cere- 
monial sense,  though  it  recalls  the  service  of  the 
priests  in  the  temple  service  and  ritual. 

In  fulfilling  this  special  mission  to  Paul  Epaphrodi- 
tus  was  filling  up  what  had  been  lacking  in  the  min- 
istry of  the  Philippian  church  for  some  years  (Phil. 
4:30).  They  had  loved  Paul  all  the  while.  He  knew 
that.  But  they  had  lacked  opportunity  to  show  their 
unchanging  love  for  Paul  the  founder  of  their  church. 
But  now  that  long  imprisonment  has  befallen  Paul 
they  manage  to  have  some  share  in  the  alleviation  of 
Paul's  tribulation  (Phil.  4:14).  So  Paul  puts  it  down 
in  his  column  of  credits  to  this  church  (4:15),  once 
the  only  church  with  such  a  column.  Epaphroditus 
did  his  part  in  the  transaction  nobly  and  Paul  received 
the  gifts. 

But  Epaphroditus  fell  sick  on  his  arrival  in  Rome. 
The  voyage  was  a  long  one  for  those  days,  unless  he 
came  partly  by  land  to  Brundisium  and  on  to  Rome. 
But  travel  had  its  risks  on  land  even  with  the  fine 
Roman  roads.  The  inns  were  poor  and  robbers  were 
numerous.  But  the  enemy  that  attacked  Epaphroditus 
was  apparently  the  terrible  Roman  fever  (violent 
malaria)  that  is  still  a  peril  to  strangers  when  they 
come.  The  attack  was  apparently  sudden.  "For  in- 
deed he  fell  sick  nigh  unto  death"  (Phil.  2:27).  It  is 
one  of  the  speculations  of  the  moderns  about  Greece 
and  Rome  that  the  mosquito  did  as  much  as  the  bar- 
barian to  bring  down  these  great  peoples  of  the  past. 
Only  the  hardiest  could  survive  malignant  malaria.  The 
illness  of  Epaphroditus  was  evidently  prolonged  for 
the  report  of  it  reached  Philippi  and  the  news  came 


EPAPHRODITUS  WHO  RISKED  ALL     233 

back  to  Epaphroditus  that  his  friends  in  Philippi  had 
heard  that  he  had  fallen  sick  (Phil.  4:26). 

The  effect  of  this  information  upon  Epaphroditus, 
who  was  now  a  convalescent,  was  very  depressing.  He 
was  like  a  college  boy  who  is  ill  and  who  hears  how 
distressed  his  mother  is  because  of  his  illness.  Epa- 
phroditus was  now  longing  to  go  back  as  soon  as  his 
strength  permitted.  Paul  implies  that  he  was  home- 
sick by  his  weakness  and  absence  from  home.  Paul 
had  come  to  be  very  fond  of  Epaphroditus.  He  prob- 
ably had  him  in  his  own  hired  house  as  much  as  he 
could.  He  certainly  visited  him  often.  He  calls  him 
"my  brother  and  co-worker  and  fellow-soldier."  Paul 
does  not  use  the  term  "fellow-prisoner"  so  that  Epa- 
phroditus suffered  no  hardship  of  that  nature  because 
of  his  service  to  Paul  who  was  allowed  to  receive  his 
friends  freely  (Acts  28:30-31).  But  Paul  had  come 
to  love  this  "fellow-soldier"  who  had  incurred  such 
peril  "for  the  work  of  Christ"  (Phil.  4:30).  He 
feared  that  he  would  have  "sorrow  upon  sorrow"  like 
the  waves  that  pile  up  on  one  another  when  the  bil- 
lows roll  over  us.  That  fate  seemed  to  be  Paul's,  but 
God  had  mercy  upon  Epaphroditus  and  upon  Paul  and 
spared  this  brave  soldier  of  Christ.  So  Paul  is  grate- 
ful and  glad. 

But  the  close  call,  as  we  say,  of  Epaphroditus 
raises  the  question  of  how  much  risk  a  preacher  should 
take  in  doing  his  work  for  Christ.  Certainly  no  min- 
ister is  justified  in  neglecting  the  ordinary  precautions 
of  health.  He  has  no  right  to  assume  that  God  will 
make  him  immune  against  disease  because  he  is  a 
preacher  of  the  gospel  if  he  violates  the  customary 


234  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

rules  of  hygiene.  Some  ministers  eat  too  much  and 
exercise  too  little.  They  have  nervous  headaches  as 
a  result  and  lose  sleep  and  keep  irregular  hours.  They 
expose  themselves  unduly  and  unwisely  when  over- 
heated after  preaching.  They  rush  out  into  the  cold 
air  with  heated  respiratory  organs.  On  the  other 
hand  some  preachers  are  overcautious  and  "molly- 
coddle" themselves  and  become  hypersensitive  by 
wearing  too  heavy  clothing  and  living  in  overheated 
rooms.  Some  preachers  are  the  victims  of  quacks  and 
patent  medicines,  not  to  say  dope,  and  are  the  dupes 
of  scheming  adventurers.  But,  when  all  is  said,  it  is 
the  duty  of  the  preacher,  to  have  a  healthy  body  to  do 
the  Lord's  work,  if  he  can  have  it.  But  many  a  deli- 
cate man  has  wrought  a  long  and  laborious  work  for 
Christ  by  taking  proper  care  of  himself.  John  A. 
Broadus  was  such  a  man.  But  the  problem  raised  by 
the  case  of  Epaphroditus  is  whether  the  preacher 
should  take  known  and  foreseen  risks  to  do  the  work 
of  Christ.  Paul  says  that  Epaphroditus  literally 
"gambled  with  his  life"  (Phil.  4:30).  The  word  used 
is  our  parabola  which  was  employed  of  the  gambler's 
dice.  Certainly  Epaphroditus  knew  of  the  peril  of 
the  Roman  fever.  But  then  other  men  went  to  Rome 
on  business  and  on  pleasure.  So  to-day  drummers 
for  American  tobacco  companies  go  to  China  and  for 
gain  go  to  Africa.  Physicians  risk  their  lives  every 
day  to  save  human  life.  Should  not  preachers  risk 
theirs  to  save  human  souls?  When  the  yellow 
fever  epidemic  was  last  in  New  Orleans,  Dr!  D.  I. 
Purser,  one  of  the  Baptist  pastors,  was  away  on  his 
vacation.  He  boldly  came  back  to  minister  to  the 


EPAPHRODITUS  WHO  RISKED  ALL     235 

sick  and  to  bury  the  dead.  He  stood  at  his  post  and, 
before  the  scourge  was  over,  fell  a  victim  to  the  plague 
and  died.  He  lost  his  life  and  saved  it.  To-day  no 
name  is  more  honoured  in  New  Orleans  than  that  of 
David  Ingram  Purser,  Sr.  It  is  the  spirit  of  the  true 
soldier  and  Epaphroditus  was  Paul's  "fellow-soldier." 
The  soldier  cannot  falter  where  the  path  of  duty  lies. 
Once  that  is  plain,  there  is  no  alternative.  Each  man 
must  bear  his  own  cross  whether  it  be  a  personal  afflic- 
tion or  a  call  to  go  into  the  valley  of  death.  It  is  good 
to  think  that  the  ministry  to-day  is  not  without  men 
of  the  heroic  spirit  who  quietly  and  simply  meet  the 
hard  demands  of  their  calling.  There  are  some  quit- 
ters, some  slackers,  some  deserters,  some  few  traitors, 
alas.  But  the  great  body  of  modern  ministers  measure 
up  to  the  high  standard  of  Epaphroditus  as  men  who 
are  willing  to  risk  all  for  the  work  of  Christ.  They 
do  not  do  it  for  the  sake  of  notoriety,  but  for  the  love 
of  Christ.  In  the  early  centuries  these  "riskers"  were 
called  parabolani,  men  who  missed  the  martyr's  death, 
but  who  deserved  the  martyr's  crown,  for  they  stood 
in  their  places  and  did  a  full  man's  duty  in  the  hour  of 
peril.  It  was  this  spirit  in  the  pioneer  preachers  of  the 
United  States  that  laid  broad  the  foundations  of 
American  liberty  and  life.  The  missionaries  to-day 
exhibit  it  in  numerous  instances.  It  is  seen  in  some 
of  the  "sky  pilots"  at  home  who  do  hard  work  with 
little  recognition  among  men.  Many  a  country 
preacher  has  measured  up  to  the  ideal  of  Epaphroditus. 
He  has  done  a  great  work  in  a  small  place  and  that 
is  better  than  a  little  work  in  a  big  place. 

Paul  is  now  sending  Epaphroditus  back  to  Philippi. 


236  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

He  had  hoped  to  come  himself  ere  long  and  still  cher- 
ishes that  purpose  when  once  he  is  free  again.  He 
cannot  spare  Timothy  just  yet.  So  Epaphroditus  is 
going  back  and  that  gives  Paul  the  occasion  to  write 
this  most  beautiful  of  all  his  wonderful  Epistles,  a 
letter  of  the  utmost  delicacy  and  insight,  sympathy  and 
elevation  of  sentiment.  There  will  be  triple  joy  in  his 
going.  Epaphroditus  will  be  happy,  the  Philippians 
will  rejoice  to  see  him  again,  and  Paul  will  be  less  sor- 
rowful by  reason  of  their  joy.  The  keynote  of  the 
letter  is  joy  in  Christ  and  Paul  is  exuberant  in  spite 
of  many  untoward  circumstances.  The  secret  of  hap- 
piness Paul  has  learned  by  now  and  he  finds  it  in  the 
constant  fellowship  with  Christ,  not  in  the  changing 
outward  conditions  of  his  environment. 

Paul  makes  a  plea  that  the  Philippians  receive  Epa- 
phroditus with  all  joy.  It  would  seem  to  be  hardly 
necessary  to  make  that  request,  but  Paul  leaves  nothing 
undone  that  will  add  to  the  happiness  of  Epaphroditus 
who  had  done  so  much  to  fulfil  the  wishes  of  the  Philip- 
pians and  to  add  to  Paul's  comfort.  His  daring  and 
his  sufferings  had  endeared  him  all  the  more  to  both 
Paul  and  the  Philippians.  He  deserves  special  honour 
for  his  work's  sake.  He  had  been  a  hero  of  the  Cross 
as  truly  as  Alvin  York  and  Sergeant  Woodfill  de- 
serve recognition  for  their  prowess  in  France.  "Hold 
such  in  honour,"  Paul  urges,  "because  for  the  work 
of  the  Lord  he  came  nigh  unto  death,  risking  his  life 
that  he  might  fill  up  what  was  lacking  in  your  service 
to  me."  We  can  easily  conjecture  the  joy  of  the  greet- 
ing given  Epaphroditus  when  he  arrived  and  delivered 
Paul's  gracious  letter  of  gratitude  which  was  read  to 


EPAPHRODITUS  WHO  RISKED  ALL     237 

the  whole  church.  They  would  recognise  the  same 
dauntless  spirit  that  sang  praises  at  midnight  in  the 
Philippian  jail. 

It  is  fitting  that  a  plea  be  made  that  due  honour  be 
given  by  the  churches  to  their  ministers  who  live  and 
labour  for  the  work  of  the  Lord.  In  most  instances  the 
plea  is  not  needed  for  these  pastors  receive  the  full 
love  and  loyalty  of  an  appreciative  and  a  devoted  people. 
In  a  few  cases  the  minister  is  not  worthy  of  special 
honour  because  he  has  not  given  himself  wholly  and 
heartily  to  the  work  of  the  Lord.  People  are  keenly 
sensitive  to  slackers  in  the  ministry.  As  a  rule,  these 
men  sooner  or  later  drop  out.  But  sometimes  zealous 
and  consecrated  ministers  do  not  receive  proper  appre- 
ciation of  their  work  while  they  are  living.  Their 
memory  will  be  revered  when  they  are  dead,  but  so 
many  people  are  careless  and  indifferent  and  just  take 
for  granted  what  needs  to  be  expressed  by  word  and 
deed.  Love  grows  by  expression.  So  cheer  up  the 
heart  of  your  pastor  by  kind  words  of  genuine  love 
and  by  filling  his  larder  a  little  fuller.  Add  something 
to  his  salary  and  so  lighten  the  burden  of  family 
cares  and  set  his  mind  and  heart  free  to  do  the  work 
of  the  Lord  that  he  loves  and  that  is  so  much  needed. 

A  special  word  should  be  uttered  for  the  old  preacher 
who  has  toiled  long  and  faithfully  on  a  pitifully  small 
salary.  He  has  been  able  to  lay  by  little  or  nothing  and 
people  no  longer  care  for  his  preaching.  Perhaps  he 
is  also  feeble  and  in  any  case  few  avenues  are  open 
to  him  by  which  he  can  earn  his  living.  Most  de- 
nominations are  now  pensioning  these  soldiers  of  the 
Cross  as  a  matter  of  simple  justice.  It  is  done  by  the 


238  TYPES  OF  PREACHERS 

government  and  by  the  railroads  and  all  decent  con- 
cerns for  their  employees.  These  men  should  not  be 
regarded  as  paupers  or  treated  as  dependents.  They 
deserve  more  than  they  will  ever  receive.  The  least 
that  we  can  do  for  them  is  to  give  them  some  of  the 
comforts  of  life  for  their  old  age  and  to  give  them  the 
respect  and  honour  that  is  their  due.  "Hold  such  men 
in  honour." 

There  was  never  a  time  when  the  work  of  Christ 
made  a  stronger  appeal  to  the  heroic  element  in  men 
than  now.  The  tempting  attractions  of  other  callings 
draw  away  the  lighthearted  and  the  unstable.  But  the 
men  who  can  read  the  signs  of  the  times  can  hear  the 
cry  of  China's  millions  for  light  and  leading  out  of 
the  grasping  selfishness  of  the  nations  that  are  ex- 
ploiting her.  The  old  gods  of  China  are  dead.  They 
can  no  longer  beat  tom-toms  to  drive  away  the  demons 
of  greed  that  grind  the  nation's  life  beneath  the  mod- 
ern juggernauts.  The  students  of  China  feel  the  throb 
of  the  freedom  that  is  in  Christ.  They  are  blindly 
striking  out  for  help.  The  men  of  to-day  who  hear 
the  call  of  Russia  take  their  lives  in  their  hands.  And 
yet  somebody  must  heed  the  despairing  cry  of  a  dying 
world.  Thank  God  for  men  like  Epaphroditus  who 
have  the  courage  to  go  at  any  cost.  Plague  and  flood 
and  famine  only  serve  to  challenge  such  men  to  high 
endeavour  for  the  sake  of  Christ  who  gave  his  life 
that  we  might  live  and  have  more  abundant  life  for 
others. 

THE  END 


UC  SOUT 


HERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARYFACLITY 


A    000  056  661     2 


